RE: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

["Jeff Field" <jfield@aaaq.com>]

comments below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Paul
> Stahura
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:38 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
>
>
> Jeff Field,
>
> You forget that it *costs* nothing to
> hit the registry, even for "low value" names,
> plus as the WLS proposal states, 95% of the
> names will not have subscriptions.  Since hitting
> the registry costs the hitter nothing there is no disincentive
> to do it, even for low value names.

I'm not sure I get your statement...why would someone hit the registry if
the only names that would be available would be names that have no
(perceived) value?  Of course, in the interest of simplification, I left out
one other variable that would play in to all this (and perhaps this is what
you mean), cost.  The higher the cost of WLS, the less the delete/load
problem goes away.  IOW, if it costs $1,000 (I'm using an extreme figure
here for illustration purposes) to subscribe a name through WLS, then sure,
a lot of people would wait for the name to show up in the mass deletes.
OTOH, if a WLS subscription costs $1, then even names with low (perceived)
value will be subscribed and will therefore not be included in the mass
deletes.  So yes, cost does play a factor in whether or not a name will be
subscribed through WLS and ultimately whether the name will be available or
not in the mass deletes.  Again, the higher the cost of WLS, the less the
delete/load problem goes away.  Of course, the flip of that is, the lower
the cost of WLS, the more the delete/load problem goes away.

> Also, Verisign and SnapNames have both stated
> that WLS is not intended to solve this problem.

Yes, noted...but, I still believe the delete/load problem would vanish
whether that result was intended or not.  BTW, I mentioned in my original
email my comment was merely that, a comment, not an endorsement either for
or against WLS.  I support the decoupling of the delete/load problem and WLS
issues; they should, IMO, be treated as two completely separate issues.

Best,

Jeff (Field)

>
> Paul
> eNom, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:28 PM
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few
> >
> >
> > jeff field wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO, the delete/load problem will absolutely vanish if WLS
> > is implemented.
> > > Why?  Because all names of any substantial value will always have
> > > subscriptions, all names of lesser value that get near or
> > go past their
> > > expiration date will soon get subscribed (on a rolling
> > basis), and names
> > > that have no value at all will just go away.  IOW, any name
> > in the registry
> > > worth anything to a speculator or otherwise will be
> > registered by utilizing
> > > WLS, not by snagging it at mass delete time.  The only
> > names that will be
> > > mass deleted will be names that have no value.  And, if the
> > names being
> > > deleted have no value, it would naturally follow that no
> > one will be hitting
> > > the registry to register those names.  And, if no one is hitting the
> > > registry at mass delete time, well, there goes the load on
> > the registry and,
> > > there also goes the delete problem.
> >
> > The truly interesting point in all of this is the
> > ascription of *intrinsic value* to domain names.  This
> > notion is tantamount to declaring a domain name as a
> > commodity and not simply a designation akin to a telephone
> > number.  Commodities have value and are generally
> > considered a class of property.
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > 	Hermes Network Inc.
> > 	Toronto, Canada
> >
> > ----
> > direct: 416.422.1034
> >
> > icq: 34564103
> > --
> > 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
> >
> --
> 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
>
>

--
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