Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

[Don Brown <donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net>]

I could not have said it any better than that.  Think about it.

Thanks,


Thursday, August 22, 2002, 10:30:59 PM, George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote:
GK> Hi Karl,

GK> --- Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
>> However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has
>> become
>> - at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I

GK> Let's take this point on directly. You want ICANN to step back and get
GK> out of the way -- that's fine. HOWEVER, that *doesn't* mean supporting
GK> WLS. Remember, ICANN and Verisign currently have a contract. It is
GK> Verisign that is asking to CHANGE the terms of the contract (via its
GK> change of the domain allocation method, and the increase in pricing).

GK> If you're truly in favour of stepping out of the way, then the correct
GK> course of action is not to go for a change in the contract (which is a
GK> one-sided windfall for Verisign, with no benefit and indeed an expense
GK> to the community ICANN represents), but instead to simply say "NO", and
GK> vote for the status quo. The Status Quo represents no regulation, not
GK> making a change which unilaterally benefits the registry operator. Get
GK> out of the way of the Registrars, who are innovating, and don't
GK> interfere with the existing marketplace. It's not the Registrars who
GK> are asking to change the rules, to tilt the playing field. Consumers
GK> aren't asking for this -- they're begging you not to give more control
GK> to Verisign. The Business Constituency isn't asking for WLS.

GK> Verisign has the ability to compete at the Registrar level. Their
GK> partner, SnapNames, boasts that it has a 70% success rate. They can
GK> market it on that basis, in the status quo at the registrar level, and
GK> allow their competitors to get what they can. Forcing SnapNames
GK> competitors to shut down and simply become resellers of Verisign, with
GK> no value added, is unacceptable, and leaves consumers with higher
GK> prices, and fewer choices. How is that in keeping with ICANN's mission
GK> to promote competition?

GK> Verisign doesn't consider this an "innovative" service, you can be sure
GK> of that (though they mouth the words). They don't need WLS to compete
GK> against .co.uk, or .ca, or .tv, or .cc. You don't see those other
GK> registries "competing" on the basis of waiting lists for expired names.
GK> Having WLS on .de doesn't somehow make .de a more favourable place to
GK> have domain names, rather than .com. You mentioned some areas that
GK> *are* innovative, and you denigrate them by lumping them into the same
GK> class as WLS, which is not innovative.

GK> I've asked proponents of WLS to find a single example on the planet
GK> where people pay to be on a waiting list like this, where if the
GK> current registrant renews, they are still out their cash. Do you see it
GK> in the Trademark registration field? How about vanity license plates,
GK> or vanity telephone numbers (to Neustar in particular, who has
GK> expertise in phone systems)? Suppose you wanted to be on a waiting list
GK> for Dallas Cowboys season tickets -- if folks renew their tickets, do
GK> the Cowboys keep your deposit? How about when you go to rent an
GK> apartment -- does the landlord keep your security deposit for being on
GK> a waiting list, if the current tenant renews? The only area in which
GK> Verisign is "innovating" is in its level of greed and monopolistic
GK> behaviour -- its desire to shut out competitors from an existing
GK> market. That behaviour shouldn't be rewarded -- there are far greedier
GK> people about who can do a better job, if ICANN will let me^H^H them. ;)

GK> I've written a lot about this topic since last December, and others
GK> have since months before that. I hope that the Board has been following
GK> the debate, and has at least glanced at the WLS Public Comments forum
GK> and the Anti-WLS petition. There are few issues where the Names Council
GK> has had such a strong consensus, and for the Board to ignore that
GK> consensus is inadvisable (it'll be challenged, if you do). Can ICANN
GK> survive another embarrassment, in caving to Verisign like this? The
GK> 3000+ petition signatures and 1000 forum posts is only the tip of the
GK> iceberg compared to the outrage that will ensue, when folks start to
GK> see the ramifications of another poor ICANN decision.

>> For example - ICANN is imposing business models.  ICANN's mechanisms
>> rule
>> out potentially innovative and useful alternatives.  For instance,

GK> WLS isn't an example of innovation or a useful alternative. It's a tax
GK> on the system, by reimposing central control over the list of expiring
GK> names. What prevents Verisign registrar from taking out a (phantom) WLS
GK> slot on 100% of its names, shutting out all other players, and then
GK> auctioning off the names on eBay, like they do for .cc names? It's
GK> money shifting from one pocket to another, and if they don't get their
GK> price, they can always sell it for $24, in the worst case scenario.
GK> This is a simple way to circumvent the price caps in the registry
GK> agreement. ICANN clearly doesn't have the inclination to stop that
GK> practice, either.

>> service can be done is at the registry.  My own preference is for the
>> 
>> thinnest of thin registries - sort of a microkernel - upon which 
>> everything else is layered by other, independent, entities.)

GK> But, moving things back into the control of the registry, like WLS, is
GK> a move towards a thicker registry. The status quo is preferable, where
GK> innovation takes place at the registrar layer.

GK> Sincerely,

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

GK> __________________________________________________
GK> Do You Yahoo!?
GK> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
GK> http://finance.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