<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Some remarks on WLS/deleted domain handling.
Please find attached a couple of messages I just sent to the
transfer task force, summarizing what were the key points according
to my recollection of today's and yesterday's telephone conferences.
If I missed anything, it would be most helpful if you could follow
up to this.
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- To: Transfer TF <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
- Subject: Re: WLS/deletes: Hoarding
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:48:28 +0200
- In-Reply-To: <20020522164156.GA17866@yoda.does-not-exist.org>
- References: <20020522164156.GA17866@yoda.does-not-exist.org>
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
On 2002-05-22 18:41:56 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>There is currently no policy which determines when registrars must
>delete a domain name from the SRS. This leads to the effect of
>"hoarding", i.e., registrars continuing to control domain names
>for an arbitrary amount of time after their expiration date.
>
>This effect contributes to consumer dissatisfaction, since
>consumers are not able to get such domains by regular means.
>(Various contributors.)
>
>It also badly interacts with the WLS proposal as it currently
>stands: Registrars may design their deletion process in a way
>which leads to a deletion of an expired domain name considered
>interesting only in the event that a WLS subscription is placed
>through the same, original registrar. Thus, if WLS was
>implemented in the way it is currently on the table, competition
>between registrars for WLS subscriptions would be skewed in favor
>of those registrars who have large pools of expired, but undeleted
>names under their control.
(Sorry, I forgot half of the letter.)
The proposed remedy for this problem is a uniform policy concerning
the point of time at which registrars are required to actually
delete expired domain names from the SRS.
It was argued that this would also lessen the cost Verisign registry
is currently experiencing due to the attempts of various services to
register expired domain names, since these services' systems would
not have to continuously hammer the registry's systems.
Creation of such a policy would require a formal consensus process.
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
The inadvertent loss of domain names is one issue which occurred
frequently throughout the discussions.
With respect to WLS, it was argued by many participants that the
very existence of that kind of service would compel current domain
name holders into trying to purchase a WLS subscription for their
own domain names, thus leading to increased cost to current domain
name holders, and to intellectual property owners. There were
basically two WLS-centric solution approaches for this: (1)
Registrants could be allowed to forbid the placement of WLS
subscriptions on their domain names (Rick Wesson), (2) WLS
subscriptions could be restricted to domain names which are about to
expire within less than 1 year (Bret Fausett).
More generally, it was pointed out that valuable domain names would
be lost even with the current system, where various services compete
for expired/deleted domain names. Generic solutions to the problem
of inverted domain name loss include the redemption grace period
currently under discussion (which would be a registry-based
approach), and alternative billing models on the registrars' side,
as suggested by Elisabeth Porteneuve in her recent posting.
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
It was argued by many participants in the discussions that an
establishment of WLS as currently proposed would be harmful to
existing registrar-based services, and that the suggested
grandfathering for SnapBack holders would put SnapNames into an
inappropriately advantageous position.
As far as the preferential grandfathering for SnapBack holders is
concerned, Chuck Gomes of Verisign suggested that any providers of
SnapBack-like services should contact Verisign in order to negotiate
similar solutions for the domain names they are currently trying to
get for their customers.
Other than that, Chuck Gomes argued that all this would only prove
that the WLS proposal would provide customers with service superior
to the one currently offered in the marketplace, and that, for this
reason, WLS should be given a try.
Ultimately, this may indeed not be a policy question, but one better
deferred to offline competition and anti-trust regulations.
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
Another question which was touched at several points is the overall
procedure for the addition of new services at the registry level.
As is well-known, Verisign has been arguing that no policy is
involved with WLS.
Differing from this, the ICANN board has, so far, been following the
procedure outlined by Mr. Touton in his analysis of the Verisign
proposal. This procedure has been described by George Kirikos in
the following way: If the new service leads to a win-win situation,
approve it expeditiously. If the new service leads to a win-lose
situation (like, as he said, WLS does), chose the more difficult
avenue of a formal consensus process.
I do not seem to remember any alternative proposals.
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|