Re: [ga] Compiled WLS Questions

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

Alex and all Assembly members,

  Thank you for consolidating the two different set of questions
here Alex.  Well done!  Indeed I support that these questions should
be answer directly and unambiguously by whomever at Verisign.

  Perhaps a resolution Ballot for the GA members to officially
vote on these questions be provided for the record?

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> [The list has been sent to VeriSign Global Registry Services]
>
> Compilation of questions from the DNSO General Assembly
> about the proposed Waiting List Service for domain names
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Registry load issues
>
> 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. Why has Verisign refused to implement various technical fixes to
>     reduce registry load issues, including "rate-limiting" technology and
>     "extended response codes"?
>
> 3. When does VGRS plan to solve her problems; the increased load on VGRS
>     systems, as mentioned in Montevideo, Uraguay in September 2001.
>
> 4. 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?
>
> Legal issues
>
> 5. Can Verisign (registry) assure the community that registrars
>     offering this service on a world-wide basis are not going to face
>     legal problems?  In an earlier message (*) sent to the registrars'
>     list, Jim Archer raises some questions on this, arguing that
>     offering WLS subscriptions may be considered commodity trading.  If
>     such problems exist even in some (possibly obscure) jurisdictions,
>     this would introduce an unfair national bias into the system.
>     (*) <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01852.html>
>
> 6. 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?
>
> 7. On what (contractual) grounds does VGRS propose the WLS, instead of
>     letting this part of the markt be a free operating system?
>     Where does VGRS base the sale of WLS upon, considering that it is her
>     contractual duty to return domains to the pool after 45 days, in which
> case
>     there would be nothing to sell
>
> 8. When does VGRS propose to settle with ICANN on a delete agreement pursuant
>     to 3.7.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).
>
> 9. Does this WLS not constitute a seperate contract between ICANN and VGRS
>     and as such, should an open "bid" period to allow other to "bid" for a
>     likewise system not be entertained?
>
> Prices, payment and costs
>
> 10.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)
>
> 11.What besides "willingness of the market" is the base for the extremely
>     high price of WLS? When will VGRS deliver a cost-based analyses to all
>     constituencies to determine a "fair" price for such services, if they
>     should be started?
>
> 12.How does the WLS system handle credit-card chargebacks by
>     registrants (and the associated chargeback fees) who fail to acquire a
>     name?
>
> 13.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?
>
> Test success criteria
>
> 14.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?
>
> 15.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?
>
> 16.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)
>
> Abusive speculation
>
> 17. 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"? (As of this writing,
>     the Hot 100 list on SnapNames' website is apparently no longer
>     available, although the mirror is available)
>
> Grandfathering
>
> 18.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?
>
> 19.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?
>
> Consensus process
>
> 20.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?
>
> WLS implementation
>
> 21.a) Will the WHOIS information for the WLS subscription holder be
>     made public?
>     b) If not, why not?
>
> 22.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"?
>
> 23.Will WLS subscriptions be refused on names that expire after the
>     end of the WLS subscription?
>
> Secondary market
>
> 24.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?
>
> 25.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?
>
> 26.How does VGRS respond to the fact that WLS will put a number of operators
>     in a likewise service based on free market principles out of business?
>
> Bulk deletions
>
> 27.Will the process of BULK deletion remain in place?
>
> 28.Verisign has not had a batch deletion in about 4 weeks. Have batch
>     deletions been suspended pending the resolution of the WLS proposal?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> This list has been compiled from questions asked by members of the
> DNSO General Assembly list.
>
> --
> 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