Re: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue

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

I couldn't agree more Bruce, but unfortunately, as long as Verisign is
managing the consensus process and not the Names Council via the DNSO, our
options are extremely limited.

Were the NC to add this to the agenda for the DNSO and work towards a
consensus resolution to the issue, I think that we would have an extremely
good chance of arriving at a solution that closely resembles what you
describe below.

Take care,

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:47 AM
Subject: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue


> Hello All,
>
> I think we should separate the WLS as a proposed new service, from the
> problems with competition for expired names.
>
> One way to do this would be to prevent a WLS being placed on a name within
> say 30 days of the expiry date of the domain during the trial period.
Thus
> the WLS would then act as a genuine back order system, not as a higher
> re-registration fee for a deleted domain name.  We can still have the
> various competing approaches to securing deleted names.
>
> The current WLS proposal would likely create the same behaviour as we are
> seeing already.  ie speculators will wait for signs that a domain name is
> about to be deleted, and then compete to get the WLS on the name.
>
> I would like to see a proposed solution to the deletes problem (ie
excessive
> use of checks/adds in the lead up to a domain name being deleted), at the
> same time that we decide on the WLS solution/trial.
>
> I personally like the idea of the back order concept as a new business
idea,
> but I disagree that it solves the current problem with the existing core
> registry service.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin