[ga] WLS & back to basics

[Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>]

Assembly

In order to get some more clarity in the matter, I have taken the liberty to 
cut & paste a number of statements from the proposal and the GA list, to 
which i add a number of questions that are imo crucial to this matter.

First of all the reason for the plan:
<from www.icann-registrars.org/deletes.htm>
Interested parties attended an informal meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay 
(contemporaneously with the quarterly ICANN General Meetings) at the 
invitation of Verisign Global Registry Services. The purpose of this meeting 
was to suggestion solutions to Verisign's registered name deletion problems. 
For a variety of reasons, Verisign has been forced to move to an interim 
registration processing system that meets the needs of very few parties. 
Several proposals were tabled at this meeting, however it was clear to all in 
attendance that further discussion was required to fully explain and analyze 
the various propositions. As a result of this, a mailing list 
(icann-delete@total.confusion.net) was created, several propositions were 
tabled and much discussion ensued. 
</from www.icann-registrars.org/deletes.htm>

Several plans were proposed and the snapnames / versigin WLS was proposed by 
snapnames, however mr Wiener states very recently:
<paste>
" From: Ron Wiener <Ron@Snapnames.com>
 To: "'Paul Stahura'" <stahura@enom.com>, "'ga@dnso.org'" <ga@dnso.org>"
 >> WLS wasn't even announced until Dec 30th.  I agree completely Paul -
between Sept 7th and Dec 30th no registrar ever said they'd support the WLS.
Because they never heard of it.
 </paste>

In those plans he states:

<paste>
Nuts and Bolts.  The first customer to place a back-order on a name is the 
customer who will get the name if the current registrant decides not to renew 
it.  If a name is deleted and is re-registered, the now-unfilled back-order 
position could then be bought by the new owner, as a form of protection 
against inadvertent failure to renew, hijacking, or deletion.  Or it could be 
bought by someone else ? a second-generation back-order.
</paste>

however in the same email quoted here above he states :

<paste>
>> Enough with this red herring "duping" issue.  Are you seriously
suggesting that some registrars would stoop so low as to "dupe" unwitting
customers into buying a WLS subscription on their own name?  I'm sorry, I
don't buy it.  
</paste>

In that same meeting another proposal gets by far the most votes, yet nothing 
is done with it.

Despite the not so enthousiastic response, Snapnames and Verisign, who was 
charmed, decide to work out this proposal and turn it into the current WLS.

In the WLS it is written:
<paste>
Specifically, the proposed WLS is intended to provide both(1) a new, 
streamlined business opportunity for the entire registrar community, and(2) 
some measure of relief in dealing with the "deleted domains" issue.
</paste>

Yet again in the same email as quoted above mr. Wiener states:
<paste>
>> WLS was *never* put forth as a solution for the load problem.  There have
been many other good suggestions for dealing with the load problem, but they
are in no way related to the merits of the WLS.  The WLS should have a
positive impact on preventing *further* degradation as more registrars
continue to get into the secondary name marketplace, can't possibly have a
negative impact (as other proposed methods do), but was never proposed as
the solution to this problem.  
</paste>

In the same proposal Verisign says to seek feedback from the registrar 
community before January the 18th so they will have time to evaluate  and 
compile the feedback and answer it, so they can start with implementation in 
Feb.
Nonetheless Mr. Gomes states in an email to this llist:

<paste>
We would welcome feedback from such a working group with regard to our
Wait Listing Proposal if it could be provided by the end of January.
Our plan was to seek such feedback from interested constituencies after
we had received it from the registrars.  We started with the registrars
because any such service would have to be offered directly to consumers
by registrars
</paste>

And then we get down to the semantics of the system:

<paste>
All current processes would remain unchanged with one exception. A domain 
name registration that is subscribed to on WLS will be regsitered to the 
subscriber when the current domain name registration is deleted thourgh 
normal operational procedures.
</paste>
Now this is impossible.(sic)
It would mean under "normal" procedures it would be (after deletion) 
non-existant, therefore open to registration by anyone.
So changes have to be made to prevent that, since a 100% assurance is given 
to the WLS subscriber that in case of deletion he/she will get the domain.

I will still hold high my  point of view that once a domain is deleted it 
becomes non-existant and therefore the next registrant is registering a new 
domain, hence the registry in co-operation with snapnames is registering 
domain-names, something which is strictly prohibited by the agreement with 
ICANN.
There is no such thing as a second hand domain, recycled domains or whatever, 
there are only existing registrations and new regsitrations.

By weighing the market potential to price the WLS snapnames and the regsitry 
have prevented to give to any constituency a reasonable cost breakdown on the 
product, this while normally the costprice for an article for sale is the 
base for a retail or wholesale price.

by not opening up that data the proposers leave room for all sorts of 
speculation that does not support their objective.

Furthermore it is "strange" that only the registrar constituency will be or 
was supposed to be consulted, surely proposers see the importance of other 
constituencies in matters concerning the domain names registry.placed upon 
them by the ministery in her contract with ICANN.

In order to get away from key issues, such as the rightfulness of the 
registry entering the registrar playing field and selling snapnames to the 
registrars, the existence of "recycled" domains and such, the proposers go 
through geat depths, which again poses more questions then gives answers.
The emphasis of the discussion is constantly moved towards the pircing and 
profitibillity of the "product" , of course for a good reason, it distracts 
the discussion from more serious questions and as stated "this is easily 
resolved".
Snapnames adds to the confusion by feeding the constituencies with "reports" 
that hold no data but look impressive and so move again the discussion away 
from the real issues.

If however the real issues are not resolved, a discussion about 
profitibillity, customer desire, open markets, equal shares, defense of the 
little man and such are a complete waste of everyones time.
One can draw all kind of conclusions from this behaviour, one would be that 
it is indeed a done deal that needs justification, the other can be that 
parties are desperately trying to corner a market, but all are speculations, 
the truth will at any given moment be clear, but for now, we have to place 
our faith once again in the hands of ICANN who seems to be the only one 
capable of stopping this "project" since it is clear that no matter how much 
input, albeit negative, this plan gets, the proposers are dead set on 
launching and leaving us all with a "fait a complis".

regards

abel wisman



-- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html