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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

George and all assembly members,

  These are very good questions that need to be answered by
Verisign as well as the ICANN BoD and staff.  Well done George! >:)

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've gone through the discussions of the past month carefully and tried
> to come up with a set of questions for Verisign. Feel free to consider
> adding them to the DNSO GA, Registrars, or other constituency questions
> (I think the more a question is repeated, the greater difficult
> Verisign will face in refusing to provide answers). Many will recognize
> these questions from before, although there are a few new ones that
> I've not seen posted elsewhere. Apologies if you receive this email
> more than once.
>
> Let's play 20 questions:
>
> 1. CIRA, the registry for dot-ca, was able to manage 100-times
> scalability when it released expired names recently for re-registration
> (see http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/63.html ). Given that this
> non-profit registry did not require a wait-list system, nor a
> surcharge, what are the technical flaws in Verisign systems that
> prevent a similar system as CIRA?
>
> 2. a) What are the success criteria that Verisign/ICANN intend to use
> at the end of the 1-year WLS testing period (these should be specified
> ex-ante, not ex-post)?
>    b) Do those criteria take into account the existing competitive
> landscape that exists in the market?
>    c) If so, what market measurements has Verisign/ICANN made of the
> current competitive landscape (NameWinner, eNom, AWRegistry,
> ExpireFish, SnapNames, NicGenie, IARegistry, Signature Domains, and
> other competitors), to serve as the basis for a comparison?
>    d) Under what metrics will the WLS test be considered a failure?
>
> 3. At: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00081.html Chuck
> Gomes wrote "The value to the Internet community therefore seems rather
> obvious to me. But, if there is none as you suggest, then the service
> will be a failure.  On the other hand, if there is demand and hence
> value, it will succeed.  The level of success will depend on how much
> demand and value there is.  The best way to test it is to let the
> market prove it one way or other."
>
> There currently exists a competitive market in the automotive industry
> (as there is for the expired domain names industry). If it was replaced
> by a single monopolistic seller for a 1-year test period, cars would
> undoubtedly still be bought, as there is a intrinsic demand for cars
> themselves. How does Verisign/ICANN intend to differentiate the demand
> for WLS from the demand for the expired names themselves, when there
> would be no alternative mechanism for securing those expired names for
> which there is a basic demand already that is being satisfied in the
> market?
>
> 4. If the WLS is deemed to be illegal (due to anti-trust law, and/or
> relevant Commodity Futures law), will Verisign/ICANN indemnify affected
> resellers, registrants and other market participants from all
> liability, legal costs, and implementation costs associated with the
> 1-year test?
>
> 5. a) How much is Snapnames being paid per reservation? Why?
>    b) What are the relevant patent-pending registration numbers for any
> intellectual property that is involved in the creation of the WLS, in
> particular the "Parallel Registry" technology?
>
> 6. What is the definition of "abusive speculation"? In particular, do
> any of the 55 examples from the SnapNames Hot 100 referenced at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00085.html
>
> constitute "abusive speculation"? (I will note that as of this writing,
> the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
> available, although the mirror is available)
>
> 7. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
> reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
> "extended response codes"?
>
> 8. a) What is Verisign's proposed wholesale price for a variant of WLS
> with zero (0) exchanges?
>    b) What are Verisign's proposed wholesale prices for a variant of
> WLS with a two-stage  mechanism, where the WLS holder is charged $X for
> their place in queue, and then and additional $Y if and only if the
> domain is deleted, with no exchanges? (i.e. tell us X and Y)
>
> 9. a) Verisign has highlighted that there are 80-100 million domain
> "checks" per day. What is the number of checks per day on average,
> broken down by each of the accredited registrars?
>    b) Which of the above registrars are performing these checks on
> behalf of SnapNames?
>
> 10. Has Verisign considered implementing a 1-year test on the dot-TV
> and dot-CC TLDs, instead of on dot-COM and dot-NET? Why wouldn't a test
> on those two TLDs suffice, if it's merely a "test"? (rationale: a test
> on dot-TV and dot-CC would not impact the existing competitive deleted
> domains industry, and would also provide the further advantage of
> comparison between the two alternative markets on the same time-scale)
>
> 11. a) Will existing holders of SnapNames SnapBacks be grandfathered
> into the WLS?
>     b) If not, what are the proposed Sunrise and Landrush mechanisms
> for the WLS?
>
> 12. Since WLS subscriptions purchased in the final month of the "test"
> will continue be honoured, doesn't this mean that the impact of this
> "test" on the deleted domains market will be for 2 years and not merely
> 1 year?
>
> 13. a) Under what metrics does Verisign plan to decide that there is a
> stakeholders "consensus" for bringing forth this proposal to ICANN? In
> particular, what level and nature of opposition must exist to abandon
> the proposal?
>     b) Under what conditions do counter-proposals by other stakeholders
> receive attention as viable alternatives to WLS?
>     c) Why is the "Status Quo" proposal not an option? (it seems to
> have greater support and consensus at this time than the WLS) If it has
> greater support than the WLS, why is the "Status Quo" not the best
> option?
>
> 14. Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
> deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?
>
> 15. a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
> made public?
>     b) If not, why not?
>
> 16. a) If a name is deleted "in error", does it go back to the original
> registrant?
>     b) What are the exact conditions that constitute a deletion "in
> error"?
>
> 17. Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
> end of the WLS subscription?
>
> 18. How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
> registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
> name?
>
> 19. How will WLS enhance competition and innovation in the deleted
> domain industry, when it will reduce the number of available business
> models that presently exist in the marketplace?
>
> 20. Which of the existing business models that are active in the
> deleted domains market (eNom, SnapNames, NameWinner, NicGenie,
> Signature Domains, IARegistry, AWRegistry, ExpireFish, and others) are
> inappropriate and/or violations of their respective registrar
> agreements?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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