[registrars] Fw: [ga] GA summary 2002-01.

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

GA discussion summary, January 1 - 8, 2002.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:57 AM
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-01.


> This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during 
> the first week of 2002.  List archives are available online at 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/maillist.html>.
> 
> Criticism and suggestions on how to improve this are welcome.
> 
> 
> Votes
> 
> 
> The election for the GA representative to the NC Transfer Task 
> Force, began on Thursday 3 January 2002, and will end on Thursday 10 
> January 2002.  The candidates are Dan Steinberg, Eric Dierker, and 
> Jeff Williams.  Details on the vote are available from 
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-b10-outline.html>.
> 
> The call for endorsement for the election of the GA Chair and 
> Alternate Chair closed on Friday, 04 January 2002.  The vote began 
> Saturday 5 January 2002, and will end on 12 January 2002. The 
> candidates are Kristy McKee, Thomas Roessler, Alexander Svensson, 
> and Eric Dierker.  Details on the vote are available from 
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.GA-b11-outline.html>.
> 
> 
> 
>        Topics
> 
> 
> (i) .org divestiture.  Jeff Williams forwarded a draft (version 5.2, 
>  from Jan 4, 2002) of the Task Force's report on the .org divestiture 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03974.html>.  Marc 
> Schneiders (the GA's representative to this task force) followed up, 
> noting that it's not clear whether the draft posted is the final 
> version, but that it was posted to the NCDNHC list.  He noted that 
> he believes that the key points he stands for are "quite well 
> represented in the text", and that he's happy with it. 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03987.html>
> 
> There was little discussion on this text.  It should, however, be 
> noted that the .org divestiture TF is currently the subject of 
> active discussions on the names council list, see various threads at 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/mail10.html>.
> 
> 
> (ii) Structure task force.  Dave P. Farrar (the GA representative to 
> the DNSO Structure Task Force) provided a summary of options and 
> discussions on the task force.  See 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04031.html>.
> 
> 
> (iii) UDRP task force:  The time line for the UDRP questionnaire has 
> been extended until February 6. 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00166.html>
> 
> 
> (iv) Deleted domain name handling.  On December 30, 2001, a PDF 
> document circulated on the registrars constituency mailing list 
> detailed plans on a waiting list service. 
> <http://www.lextext.com/icann/december2001.html#12312001a>, 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/pdf00010.pdf>.
> 
> The proposal goes like this (from Verisign's document): "WLS is a
> service whereby potential registrants ('subscribers') through their
> selected, participating registrar, may purchase a subscription tied
> to a domain name currently registered. [...] All current processes
> would remain unchanged with one exception.  A domain name
> registration that is subscribed to on WLS will be registered to the
> subscriber when the current domain name registration is deleted
> through normal operational procedures.  Initially, a domain name
> registration could only have one subscription pending at a time."
> 
> Note, in particular, that according to this proposal the registrar 
> would still be the only one who does business with registrants 
> directly.  This includes the process of fulfilling a subscription: 
> When this process is done, the domain in question will be registered 
> for the (now former) subscriber through the registrar which was used 
> to place the subscription.
> 
> Pricing at the registrar level is at US $ 40 (wholesale) for a 
> one-year subscription.
> 
> Feedback on the proposal is expected from the registrars' 
> constituency by January 18, 2002.
> 
> To implement the proposal, Verisign has licensed technology from 
> Snapnames. 
> <http://www.lextext.com/icann/january2002.html#01042002a>
> 
> 
> The proposal provoked ample, and sometimes heated, discussions on 
> the GA list, which is still going on.
> 
> The discussion included fears that the deal may already be done 
> (which was denied by Ross Rader "if the registrars have anything to 
> do with it").  Ross also pointed to a message discussing the 
> proposal which he sent to the registrars list 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html>.
> 
> Some (WX Walsh, DP Farrar) doubted that the proposal may have any 
> benefit for the internet community as a whole, as opposed to 
> Verisign's stakeholders.  To this, Chuck Gomes of Verisign responded 
> that requests for a wait list service have been there since 1996. 
> 
> Bret Fausett noted that putting the service at the registry level 
> would mean an improvement to registrants: You'd just buy one 
> subscription through your favorite registrar, and you'd be 
> guaranteed that you get a domain name if and when it lapses.  With a 
> purely registrar-based system, you'd pay various services, and that 
> just for improving the chance that you may get the domain when it's 
> dropped.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04020.html>, 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04028.html>.
> 
> In a message forwarded by WXW from some other list (the registrars 
> list?), George Kirikos elaborates on various points of criticism on 
> the proposal. In particular, George asks why Verisign registry has 
> not implemented any of the simple technical fixes proposed earlier. 
> Suggestions include "rate-limiting connections, pushing out lists of 
> candidate drop names, and returning richer error codes".  He also 
> lists "numerous competing firms and registrars attempting to 
> register expired domains, using the existing fair and transparent 
> system" (besides Snapnames). 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04014.html>
> 
> In a follow-up, Chuck Gomes points out that "every registrar would 
> have equal opportunity to participate or not participate".  George 
> Kirikos replies that his problem is "leveraging the monopoly power 
> of the registry, to enter a 'new business', which puts existing 
> market participants out of business".
> 
> Finally, Ross Rader has forwarded an alternative proposal from the 
> icann-deletes mailing list.  The proposal from Afternic.com, called 
> Registry Re-circulation System, basically boils down to an auction 
> of expired domain names during a finite amount of time after they 
> have been dropped. 
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00165.html>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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
>