Verisign to auction domin names: WLS to be approved

Verisign Registry is contracted to maintain the root server on behalf of the DoC/ICANN. The records they maintain are minimal (take a look at the zone files) as the WHOIS is distributed.

What they are proposing with the WLS is a whole new layer within their registry/registrar services - one that will finally allow Verisign to profit from the deletions.

As for the notion that Verisign Registry and Verisign Registrar are entirely seperate entities - just do some reading of the archives from the DNSO ga list for enlightenment (www.dnso.org).

 

[RacerX]

safesys: Verisign already does profit from deleted-and-re-registered names--they make $6 per. The WLS will increase that Verisign $6 profit to $35 profit. Now when Dotster sells playgirl.com for $11,000, and Verisign makes $6, that is fair??? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Verisign's contentions.

As far as the General Assembly crowd, that is a whining pack of registrar syncophants who would love to continue gouging the end-user registrants to the tune of $11K for the likes of a playgirl.com. Defending the 'drop' registrar's horrific price gouging practices is not making you points here.

 

[beatz]

@RacerX
"'Nobody forced' you to buy domain names!! "
"In buying gTLD domains, you went into a competely wilfull partnership with Verisign--and only now after I pointed it out did you even realize it!!"

First of all let me say it seems you have the wrong impression about your input here.Be assured it's not you who enlightened me on the fact that by regging any domain i have to deal with the Registry that is operated by VS - that's something i learned the second day i started with domains - so just don't overrate yourself to much.
And to say nobody forced me to reg a domain is as childish as if someone said you don't have to buy a car when there would be only 1 company controlling the car factory or whatever.This discussion is starting to get ridiculous.
Again - just because VS has a monopoly and i don't trust them doesn't mean i will give up domains LOL - it means i see what i can do to fight their activities.

 

RacerX, you think they're happy with $6 when they are seeing other registrars making multiples of that?

When dotster manages to secure a domain as hard competed for as playgirl.com then yes. The reason people pay that much is because dotster/nw have developed the skills to be able to compete with the hundreds of other would be registrants.

I don't think you've ever looked at the DNSO if you believe that is the stance of the majority there.

I'm not trying to make points here, but I am trying to be realistic about the way things work now and the way they will work post WLS.

 

[RacerX]

course not--that is the very reason Verisign is getting into the act, as my playgirl.com 'auction' of 11K illustrated.

You said: "What they are proposing with the WLS is a whole new layer within their registry/registrar services - one that will finally allow Verisign to profit from the deletions". which is totally wrong, as I pointed out they make $6 PROFIT per name.

RacerX certainly understand the laws of supply and demand in a SECONDARY market for domain names, and the corresponding prices people are willing to pay based upon market conditions. This is not the issue however. The registrars have succeeded in blurring the primary and secondary domain markets with their horrific price gouging on dropped names. This fact is indisputable. Verisign's WLS will charge a flat rate for ANY domain, and thus will return the dropped domain market back to a primary market and move it from the current 'secondary' market status. This is great for the end-user consumer. Nobody complains about the very fair system that snapnames uses--first come first serve flat rate. This would be equally fair at the WLS level, but the affected registrar community that has been price gouging 11K for domains is understandably upset. The end-user registrant that got playgirl.com I am sure would have preferred paying $75 for the name instead of 11K--and there are literally thousands of similar examples where end-user registrants would have paid far far less with a WLS system.

As far as not reading the DNSO--is this what you are referring to??

DNSO Mailling lists archives
[ga] Chronological Index
Thread Index

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 (backward) < ( 17 ) > (forward) 18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002 May 10
Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum Dan Steinberg
Re: [ga] FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSGOVERNMENTAL Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 todd glassey
[ga] proceedure for getting text approved for vote. James Love
Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum Eric Dierker
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Eric Dierker
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Ross Wm. Rader
[ga] Re: [bwg+] The GA effort to vote on a rebid Milton Mueller
[ga] other approaches and concerns Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 George Kirikos
Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns James Love
[ga] No At-Large & no GA DannyYounger
RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 William S. Lovell
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Ross Wm. Rader
Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns Karl Auerbach
Re: [ga] No At-Large & no GA Ross Wm. Rader
RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns George Kirikos
RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns Karl Auerbach
Re: [ga] No At-Large & no GA William X Walsh
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 t byfield
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 William X Walsh
RE: [ga] other approaches and concerns Paul Stahura
Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns James Love
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 t byfield
[ga] ...but we lied DannyYounger
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Ross Wm. Rader
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Jonathan Weinberg
Re: [ga] FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSGOVERNMENTAL DPF
Re: [ga] RE: Motion # 1 - addendum William S. Lovell
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 t byfield
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 William S. Lovell
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 William S. Lovell
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Ross Wm. Rader
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 William S. Lovell
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Ross Wm. Rader
Re: [ga] No At-Large & no GA jefsey
Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns Roberto Gaetano
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 George Kirikos
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Thomas Roessler
Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 DannyYounger
[ga] Motion #1 - List of Supporters Joanna Lane
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 William X Walsh
Re: [ga] other approaches and concerns William X Walsh
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 DannyYounger
2002 May 11
[ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy DannyYounger
RE: [ga] reform proposal Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Re: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy jefsey
RE: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy Hugh Blair
Re: [ga] ...but we lied Sandy Harris
Re: [ga] An alternative motion text- friendly amendment Joop Teernstra
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 t byfield
Re: [ga] Motion # 1 Gary Osbourne
RE: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy Gary Osbourne
Re: [ga] ...but we lied t byfield
RE: [ga] ...but we lied Hugh Blair
RE: [ga] Registrar Advisory Concerning Whois Data Accuracy Hugh Blair
[ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] How to distract the At-large Sotiris Sotiropoulos
[ga] Preamble/Mission Statement. Sotiris Sotiropoulos

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 (backward) < ( 17 ) > (forward) 18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mails in Archive: 1021
Mails per page: 60
Archive Updated: 2002 May 11 08:05:41 (local time zone is Central European

 

Is there currently a layer within the registry/registrar system that allows for future deletions to be allocated in a waiting list? No. So its a new layer. It will sit between the registry deletion and the registrar end user allocation and registration.

The fact they make $6 for fresh registrations/renewals has nothing to do with this. Thats profiting from registrations - not form performing a drop getting service (hence the diff in price). Also, I can't remember if the $35 includes the $6 actual registration fee if the domain is dropped and the WLS kicked into play.

Yes, thats the DNSO list I am referring to - where did you get the impression they were in favor of auctioned registrar chasing?

 

[RacerX]

as RacerX has already expressed: Yes the WLS is a proposed parallel 'NEW' registry. The Versign profit will go from $6 to $35 for EACH name. What is so difficult here?

Enom as a frequent poster, certainly is opposed to WLS for they prefer to continue to rip 'clubdrop' subscribers. Even the thickest of readers can discern their position.

 

Its $35 for a different and new service compared to the $6 registry fee.

Verisign will be profiting from the drop getting element of the service rather than just the registration element.

I suggested reading the DNSO list to see how thin the chinese walls between Verisign Resistry and Verisign Registrar are.

I think its fair to say eNom clubdrop members know what they are getting and make a value call of their own.

 

[RacerX]

with your statement: "Verisign will be profiting from the drop getting element of the service rather than just the registration element", we finally agree they profit.

Sure, enom sucker subscribers will continue. Can't prevent sheep going off to slaughter. Those that refuse to capitulate to such usury should not be denied access to otaining a name nevertheless. First come first served is what the WLS will offer, and it will even save the enom fools from themselves...

 

Nobody has implicit rights to be able to register a deleted domain name. There will be imbalance no matter what system is put in place - and as usual it will be money driven (whether directly or indirectly).

There will be no real winners from the WLS other than Verisign.

 

[mole]

Verisign doesn't give a hoot anymore. Apparently, they claim they are only doing back what the smaller registrars have been doing to them all this while.


http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_1107501,00.html

 

What would everyone think of the WLS service if VGRS wholesaled it to the registrars at $6.50 per name? Should they be able to wholesale it at a higher rate than straight registrations? What should that rate be?

VeriSign registrar is easy to pick on because they so consistantly screw their customers, but they have no monopoly on stupidity. Read the DNSO archives: several of the "registrars" (accredited but with a dozen names registered?) are knuckleheads of even greater caliber.

Even so, VeriSign registrar without fail loses market share every month as domains delete and go elsewhere. They tried to slow the bleeding by putting snapnames on their site, and I bet the registry-level WLS idea came shortly thereafter. I can begrudgingly admire the business sense behind it, even if I am not a NetSol fan.

 

Originally posted by safesys
Nobody has implicit rights to be able to register a deleted domain name. There will be imbalance no matter what system is put in place - and as usual it will be money driven (whether directly or indirectly).

There will be no real winners from the WLS other than Verisign.

I think the organization to profit from the auctions of dropped domains should be ICANN. This is said, of course, in the hopes that ICANN becomes a much more open, responsible, democratic and truly global entity. Nevertheless, if a non-profit body is in charge of regulating the internet's addressing system, then its operating costs could be partially funded through expired domain auctions, which would be the most equitable way of "sharing" the profits of such sales with the entire internet community.

Sure, some individual domain grabbers and speculators would lose out, the majority would benefit, and much greater fairness in the system would be achieved.

Just my $0.02....

Miles

 

The fact is there is no need to treat dropping domain names any differently from other names at the Registry level.

The fix to the major problem of performance that supposedly spawned the need for the WLS in Verisign's first contact with the Registrars about the idea, was to rate limit the batch queue that accepts high volume queries for domain availability.

The only things that need to happen to support a healthy dropping domain business are:

1) ICANN policy on a standard post-expiration grace period
2) Fixed drop times
3) Only allow ICANN accredited Registrars to use the server on a rate limited basis to pick up domains.

Verisign needs to do nothing else. They will continue to make their $6 on every domain name registered. They are effectively doing all of this today - with the exception of a standard drop policy and drop time.

The WLS is simply a way for Verisign to make $70M+ each year where they should be making a fraction of this. They have no "rights" to names that other people created and registered. Even worse will be the amount of money that they make on "insurance" reservations people will be encouraged to take out so that they don't risk losing their own IP.

It's a scam and it should be stopped. ICANN does not have the guts to do so, and the DoC will most likely miss this one completely as they review Verisign's practices and decide to allow them to continue or not.

-t

 

[beatz]

Originally posted by thewitt
The fact is there is no need to treat dropping domain names any differently from other names at the Registry level.

They have no "rights" to names that other people created and registered
-t

Agree 100%.
Why should dropped names be treated differently than any other domain? That's what the rules have been so far:
You register a name(which is not buying in sense of property but you rent it),you pay the annual fee for it,and if you should forget to pay your "rent" it goes back into the pool.The reason for that and that domains legaly can't be property like real estate is simply: Noone has an exclusive right on a specific domain, especially not when it comes to generic names.First come first served means the compromise if you manage to be first to rent a name,fine - as long as you pay your bills,you can rent it as long as you want - if you don't pay your bill/rent...it becomes available again.Like it is not with realestate but with renting an appartment really.So i just can't see a reason at all why a private commercial company (That's what VS is) should be given ANY kind of exclusive rights or special treatment.If a name drops,let it drop.Period.
And that be the same for all registrars plus let the registry be operated by a independent,non-registrar organization plus exchange ICANN and WIPO and everything is fine.

 

verisign should just compete with the other registrars in the market rather than freezing them out an creating a monopoly. Competition is health in any marketplace and without it consumers are the losers.

 

[RacerX]

is the very lie a FEW registrars continue to peddle without success. (MANY of the registrars are in favor of WLS--despite the propaganda to the contrary, including Melbourne IT).

The fact is, under the WLS proposal, NO registrar WILL be 'frozen out' because ANY registrar will be welcome to offer the WLS service to their customers. There is the competition. The registrar that offers the best service, price, etc. wins. JUST LIKE THE CURRENT SYSTEM FOR 'NEW' DOMAINS. Free market at work.

The registrars will however be prevented from their horrific price gouging that they so dearly love to soak registrants currently for on dropped domains. The fact is with WLS, Verisign VGRS will make $35 as opposed to the current $6 for each DROPPED domain ---AND ANY participating registrar will make approximately $35 assuming a retail $70 WLS subscription price PER DROPPED DOMAIN. Thus, BOTH will profit, but the registrars' current capacity to royally rip the public will cease. This is great news for the consumer.

When the WLS is rolled out, we will see how many registrars participate or not. I am sure many will--and it will prove the point the registrars WILL see profit just as predicted. If no registrar chooses to offer WLS, and WLS dies from lack of interest, the registrars will be right. Time will tell. RacerX guarantees there will be registrar participation because they will see the profit in it. It will be profitable for participants, For sure.


WLS: NOW and FOREVER.

 

Your main argument seems to be against the charges the registrars make under the current system, and yes - the WLS will address that.

Its the notion that the WLS will magically disperse the kind of bulk acquisitions by the major players that I disagree with.

Of course registrars will operate the WLS - it will be the only game in town for deleted domains. Better they make a smaller profit than no profit.

 

[beatz]

The point is - why should VS be the company that operates the WLS exclusively? Why not me? Why not any other company/organization?

 

WLS is a great idea as long as Verisign Registry charges the same amount that they presently charge for new domains..$6.
There is not one valid reason why a registry (one thats a monopoly at that) to charge more than they present cost for registering a new domain. Above $6 is price gouging. At the end of the day WLS is simply registering a domain that was once registered.