Re: [ga] Twenty Questions for Verisign about the WLS

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

I think George has done an excellent job. I think that his questions
should be submitted by the GA to VGRS for a response. Personally, I
would like to see VGRS's answer to each one of them.

AFIC, George, thanks for spending the time and having the patience to
wade through a lot of the issues pertaining to WLS and formulating a
lot of excellent and pointed questions.  Good job!!

Thanks,

p.s.  Although, I did notice that you forgot your profit motive, i.e.
about making George Kirikos a millionaire. :-)  That's not a problem
with me, though. :-)


Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 4:47:19 PM, George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote:
GK> Hello,

GK> I've gone through the discussions of the past month carefully and tried
GK> to come up with a set of questions for Verisign. Feel free to consider
GK> adding them to the DNSO GA, Registrars, or other constituency questions
GK> (I think the more a question is repeated, the greater difficult
GK> Verisign will face in refusing to provide answers). Many will recognize
GK> these questions from before, although there are a few new ones that
GK> I've not seen posted elsewhere. Apologies if you receive this email
GK> more than once.

GK> Let's play 20 questions:

GK> 1. CIRA, the registry for dot-ca, was able to manage 100-times
GK> scalability when it released expired names recently for re-registration
GK> (see http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/63.html ). Given that this
GK> non-profit registry did not require a wait-list system, nor a
GK> surcharge, what are the technical flaws in Verisign systems that
GK> prevent a similar system as CIRA?

GK> 2. a) What are the success criteria that Verisign/ICANN intend to use
GK> at the end of the 1-year WLS testing period (these should be specified
GK> ex-ante, not ex-post)? 
GK>    b) Do those criteria take into account the existing competitive
GK> landscape that exists in the market?
GK>    c) If so, what market measurements has Verisign/ICANN made of the
GK> current competitive landscape (NameWinner, eNom, AWRegistry,
GK> ExpireFish, SnapNames, NicGenie, IARegistry, Signature Domains, and
GK> other competitors), to serve as the basis for a comparison?
GK>    d) Under what metrics will the WLS test be considered a failure?

GK> 3. At: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00081.html Chuck
GK> Gomes wrote "The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather
GK> obvious to me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service
GK> will be a failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence
GK> value, it will succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much
GK> demand and value there is.  The best way to test it is to let the
GK> market prove it one way or other."

GK> There currently exists a competitive market in the automotive industry
GK> (as there is for the expired domain names industry). If it was replaced
GK> by a single monopolistic seller for a 1-year test period, cars would
GK> undoubtedly still be bought, as there is a intrinsic demand for cars
GK> themselves. How does Verisign/ICANN intend to differentiate the demand
GK> for WLS from the demand for the expired names themselves, when there
GK> would be no alternative mechanism for securing those expired names for
GK> which there is a basic demand already that is being satisfied in the
GK> market?

GK> 4. If the WLS is deemed to be illegal (due to anti-trust law, and/or
GK> relevant Commodity Futures law), will Verisign/ICANN indemnify affected
GK> resellers, registrants and other market participants from all
GK> liability, legal costs, and implementation costs associated with the
GK> 1-year test?

GK> 5. a) How much is Snapnames being paid per reservation? Why?
GK>    b) What are the relevant patent-pending registration numbers for any
GK> intellectual property that is involved in the creation of the WLS, in
GK> particular the "Parallel Registry" technology?

GK> 6. What is the definition of "abusive speculation"? In particular, do
GK> any of the 55 examples from the SnapNames Hot 100 referenced at:

GK> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html

GK> constitute "abusive speculation"? (I will note that as of this writing,
GK> the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
GK> available, although the mirror is available)

GK> 7. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
GK> reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
GK> "extended response codes"?

GK> 8. a) What is Verisign's proposed wholesale price for a variant of WLS
GK> with zero (0) exchanges?
GK>    b) What are Verisign's proposed wholesale prices for a variant of
GK> WLS with a two-stage  mechanism, where the WLS holder is charged $X for
GK> their place in queue, and then and additional $Y if and only if the
GK> domain is deleted, with no exchanges? (i.e. tell us X and Y)

GK> 9. a) Verisign has highlighted that there are 80-100 million domain
GK> "checks" per day. What is the number of checks per day on average,
GK> broken down by each of the accredited registrars?
GK>    b) Which of the above registrars are performing these checks on
GK> behalf of SnapNames?

GK> 10. Has Verisign considered implementing a 1-year test on the dot-TV
GK> and dot-CC TLDs, instead of on dot-COM and dot-NET? Why wouldn't a test
GK> on those two TLDs suffice, if it's merely a "test"? (rationale: a test
GK> on dot-TV and dot-CC would not impact the existing competitive deleted
GK> domains industry, and would also provide the further advantage of
GK> comparison between the two alternative markets on the same time-scale)

GK> 11. a) Will existing holders of SnapNames SnapBacks be grandfathered
GK> into the WLS? 
GK>     b) If not, what are the proposed Sunrise and Landrush mechanisms
GK> for the WLS?

GK> 12. Since WLS subscriptions purchased in the final month of the "test"
GK> will continue be honoured, doesn't this mean that the impact of this
GK> "test" on the deleted domains market will be for 2 years and not merely
GK> 1 year?

GK> 13. a) Under what metrics does Verisign plan to decide that there is a
GK> stakeholders "consensus" for bringing forth this proposal to ICANN? In
GK> particular, what level and nature of opposition must exist to abandon
GK> the proposal?
GK>     b) Under what conditions do counter-proposals by other stakeholders
GK> receive attention as viable alternatives to WLS?
GK>     c) Why is the "Status Quo" proposal not an option? (it seems to
GK> have greater support and consensus at this time than the WLS) If it has
GK> greater support than the WLS, why is the "Status Quo" not the best
GK> option?

GK> 14. Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
GK> deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?

GK> 15. a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
GK> made public?
GK>     b) If not, why not?

GK> 16. a) If a name is deleted "in error", does it go back to the original
GK> registrant?
GK>     b) What are the exact conditions that constitute a deletion "in
GK> error"?

GK> 17. Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
GK> end of the WLS subscription?

GK> 18. How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
GK> registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
GK> name?

GK> 19. How will WLS enhance competition and innovation in the deleted
GK> domain industry, when it will reduce the number of available business
GK> models that presently exist in the marketplace?

GK> 20. Which of the existing business models that are active in the
GK> deleted domains market (eNom, SnapNames, NameWinner, NicGenie,
GK> Signature Domains, IARegistry, AWRegistry, ExpireFish, and others) are
GK> inappropriate and/or violations of their respective registrar
GK> agreements?

GK> Sincerely,

GK> George Kirikos
GK> http://www.kirikos.com/

GK> __________________________________________________
GK> Do You Yahoo!?
GK> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
GK> http://greetings.yahoo.com
GK> --
GK> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
GK> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html




----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
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