Re: [registrars] RC WLS Response

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

Do you have a specific suggestion as to how the document could be modified
to take your concerns into account?

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nikolaj Nyholm" <nikolajn@ascio.com>
To: "'Registrars List'" <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response


>
>
> I disagree with this black and white point of view.
>
>
> While the poll showed unanimous opposition to WLS _as is_, I believe that
> the general sentiment was to work _with_ VGRS on improving certain aspects
> of the proposal, rather than focusing on new, alternative proposals.
>
> The document does not reflect this nuance, and I can therefore not support
> it in it's current form.
>
>
> Kindest regards
> Nikolaj Nyholm
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> > Sent: 16. januar 2002 16:05
> > To: wessorh@ar.com; Nikolaj Nyholm
> > Cc: 'Registrars List'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response
> >
> >
> > I want to second Rick's comments.  We are reacting to the
> > current WLS, and
> > it leaves us with the opportunity to continue to object to
> > any modified WLS.
> > But, we believed that we put ourselves in the strongest position to
> > negotiate by taking this stance. We should not be negotiating against
> > ourselves by telling VGRS what we'd be willing to settle for.
> >  We would only
> > end up with a position somewhere in between theirs and ours.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wessorh@ar.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:57 AM
> > To: Nikolaj Nyholm
> > Cc: 'Registrars List'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] RC WLS Response
> >
> >
> >
> > Nikolaj,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Nikolaj Nyholm wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is insufficiently nuanced to write: "in fact the
> > unanimous vote
> > > of all those taking a position - is to oppose the WLS."
> > >
> > > I believe that several registrars, ourselves included, were
> > in favour of
> > > working with Verisign on enhancing the WLS, but oppose it
> > in it's current
> > > form.
> >
> > since we could not negotiate with VGRS we could only vote on
> > the proposal
> > as given to us. When we have other proposals on the table I'm sure the
> > vote will come out differently.
> >
> > It also make complete sense that a different WLS proposal may get
> > a completely different voting result. Since every registrar
> > had some way to
> > improve the WLS it was impractical to list every registrars
> > vote and their
> > alternative; we just can't make a consensus statement that
> > says "it would
> > be ok with some changes..." without all agreeing on those
> > changes and VGRS
> > capable of incorporating those into the proposal.
> >
> > > I hope that alternative proposals ("The RC will address
> > these proposals in
> > a
> > > separate position paper.") will include suggestions on how
> > to revise the
> > WLS
> > > proposal.
> >
> > I too expect to see more alternative proposals, we have several at
> > www.icann-registrars.org please review them and provide
> > comments to their
> > authors.
> >
> > -rick
> >
> >
> >
> > > Regards
> > > Nikolaj
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> > > > Sent: 16. januar 2002 05:21
> > > > To: Registrars List
> > > > Cc: WLSDraftingTeam@ar.com
> > > > Subject: [registrars] RC WLS Response
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > all:
> > > >
> > > > attached is the draft response from the WLS Drafting Team
> > composed of
> > > > the following:
> > > >
> > > >    George DeCarlo - dotster
> > > >    Bruce Tonkin - melbourneit.com.au
> > > >    E. Broitman  - register.com
> > > >    David Wascher - iaregistry.com
> > > >    Paul Stahura - enom.com
> > > >
> > > > Please comment on the draft as to if this is an
> > acceptable response.
> > > > The WLS Drafting Team used the comments from the meeting and
> > > > additional
> > > > comments forwarded to them to draft this response.
> > > >
> > > > If you find a general exception to the response please contact the
> > > > drafting team via WLSDraftingTeam@ar.com
> > > >
> > > > A text version is included below for ease in quoting. We must
> > > > finish this
> > > > response by Thursday so that we can formally deliver it to VGRS as
> > > > requested by Friday the 18th of January, 2002.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your corporation.
> > > >
> > > > -rick
> > > >
> > > > Rick Wesson
> > > > CTO, Registrars Constituency
> > > >
> > > > -------------------- txt version of RC-WLS-Response.pdf
> > > > ---------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To Chuck Gomes,
> > > >
> > > >  The Registrar Constituency (RC) is hereby providing its formal
> > > >  position to the VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS)
> > regarding
> > > >  its proposal to manage a Wait Listing Service (WLS), the
> > subscription
> > > >  service for deleted domain names.  VRSN sent its proposal to the
> > > >  Registrar Constituency on December 30, 2001, and allowed
> > registrars
> > > >  to comment until January 18, 2002.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  The RC has considered the WLS, holding discussions and voting by
> > > >  email and through a conference call.  The overwhelming
> > posi tion of
> > > >  the RC - in fact the unanimous vote of all those taking
> > a position -
> > > >  is to oppose the WLS.  Considering VRSN's obligation under its
> > > >  agreements with ICANN to vet any proposed price
> > increases or service
> > > >  modifications for registry services with ICANN, and
> > ICANN's bottom
> > > >  -up approach, it is the RC's understanding that the RC
> > position will
> > > >  be considered within the Domain Name Supporting
> > Organization (DNSO)
> > > >  before the DNSO would make a recommendation to the ICANN
> > Board, and
> > > >  that the RC position would be a significant factor in ICANN's
> > > >  consideration of the WLS proposal.
> > > >
> > > >  Prior to reviewing the RC's concerns, it would be instructive to
> > > >  recall the history of this issue.  In Spring 2001, VGRS
> > temporarily
> > > >  shut off registrar connections, preventing new and/or s mall
> > > >  registrars from registering .com, .net and .org domain names.
> > > >  Ostensibly to address this technical load problem VGRS had
> > > >  temporarily closed the process of deleting expired names.  Rather
> > > >  than effectively solving the technical load problem,
> > VGRS implemented
> > > >  an interim solution, relegating batch requests for
> > deleting names to
> > > >  one of three pools to prevent this high -volume traffic from
> > > >  overloading its systems.  But according to VGRS, this
> > solution has
> > > >  not solved the connection problems.  In fact, VGRS is once again
> > > >  announcing that it is limiting connections.
> > > >
> > > >  The RC has a number of key concerns with WLS: a) price, b)
> > > >  transparency, c) benefit to the Internet, and d) lack of
> > a solution:
> > > >
> > > >    a) The proposed $40.00 price point for WLS (which is
> > in addition to
> > > >       the $6.00 registry fee) is exorbitant.  VGRS has
> > not justified
> > > >       this price with cost requirements.  Not only does
> > WLS create a
> > > >       much higher price point for the end consumer, it effectively
> > > >       undermines competitive registrars' financial
> > wherewithal.  It is
> > > >       highly u nlikely that registrars would be able to
> > increase their
> > > >       margins in proportion to the increased margin
> > charged by VGRS.
> > > >       In fact, market data (such as the Snapames price
> > point of $49)
> > > >       demonstrates that competitive registrars would have to
> > > >       dramatically lower , or eliminate, their current margins in
> > > >       order to compete for WLS names.  This would undermine
> > > >       competitive registrars' revenues and jeopardize
> > their ability to
> > > >       remain profitable.  * The one registrar that may be
> > able to take
> > > >       effectively advantage of this price is the VeriSign
> > registrar,
> > > >       which continues to enjoy the largest market share.
> > It would be
> > > >       able to use the new higher margin of $46.00 to price below
> > > >       wholesale, as it has in the past with the $6.00
> > fee.  The result
> > > >       is to unfairly undermine competitor regi strars.
> > > >
> > > >    b) There would be a lack of transparency if VGRS runs
> > the primary
> > > >       registry, the largest registrar, and the
> > subscription service.
> > > >       As long as the same company is operating this vertically
> > > >       powerful chain of companies, it may be possible for
> > it to shift
> > > >       domain names from the $6.00 registry to the $46.00 WLS.  In
> > > >       fact, only the registry would know all of the WLS
> > subscriptions
> > > >       and the timing for deleting names.  Such
> > information could be
> > > >       abused by its registrar.  Considering that there is
> > a history -
> > > >       some of it still unresolved - of VeriSign not
> > deleting expired
> > > >       names, the RC is doubly concerned that VGRS'
> > operating the WLS
> > > >       provides new opportunities for domain name hoarding.
> > > >
> > > >    c) The WLS provides an incentive and reward for
> > speculators, while
> > > >       squeezing registrants seeking to build a web presence and
> > > >       registrars (as explained above).  The WLS provides a "sure
> > > >       thing" to Internet insiders who are savvy enough to
> > get to the
> > > >       head of the line.  This primarily means
> > speculators.  They will
> > > >       be willing to pay the adde d $40 fee for a
> > guarantee of getting
> > > >       the expired name if 1) they are sure the name will
> > be deleted
> > > >       and 2) they believe that they can resell the domain
> > name at a
> > > >       higher price.  Insiders will be virtually the only
> > ones able to
> > > >       ensure that a certain name will be deleted.  The
> > end user will
> > > >       still have to pay the market price, which will be
> > determined on
> > > >       the secondary market.  Moreover, the fact that a WLS
> > > >       subscription has been placed on any given name
> > would prompt a
> > > >       speculator holding such domain name to renew it, rather than
> > > >       release it.
> > > >
> > > >    d) In addition to creating new problems, WLS will not solve the
> > > >       problem of batch pool slamming.  In fact, t here is the
> > > >       potential to create the same technical loading
> > problems on the
> > > >       WLS as currently exist on the main registry.  F or example,
> > > >       there will be competition amongst speculators to be
> > the first to
> > > >       get the WLS on the best names about to be deleted.
> > There could
> > > >       also be a landrush effect to place WLS on well known popular
> > > >       names, at the moment when the new WLS service goes liv e.
> > > >       Registrars will still compete for the expiring
> > names that do not
> > > >       have WLS subscriptions.  Since it costs the same
> > "to slam" a $40
> > > >       name as to slam a name greater than $40, there is
> > no incentive
> > > >       not to.  Finally, since WLS subscriptions are not tied to a
> > > >       name, this will create many WLS -switches
> > immediately after the
> > > >       zone file is released daily.
> > > >
> > > >  While the RC opposes the WLS in its current form, it
> > recognizes the
> > > >  need for a permanent solution to the apparent problem of deleted
> > > >  names not being released or b eing released in a manner that
> > > >  undermines other registry functions.  Therefore, the RC welcomes
> > > >  other ideas for addressing these issues, and has discussed other
> > > >  alternatives.  The RC will address these proposals in a separate
> > > >  position paper.  The RC is ope n to VGRS' comments on these other
> > > >  proposals, as well as any modified VGRS proposal that
> > modifies the
> > > >  WLS per the comments herein.
> > > >
> > > >  The RC  is  clearly  very  interested  in  this  issue
> > and   welcomes
> > > >  questions or further dialogue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >