[ga] Re: [icann-delete] Stasis is not an option.
At 03:23 PM 1/7/2002 -0800, Peter Girard wrote: The "Status Quo Proposal" suggested by George Kirikos may be intended humorously, but it must be pointed out that this is not an option. The system will change. Allowing dozens of companies to competitively game the registry's delete system does not constitute consumer choice and competition. It only forces the consumer to subscribe to innumerable 'attempts' to snatch a name, all but one (and usually all) of which must fail to provide a trace of value. I disagree, Peter. With the addition of an additional response code akin to "Name Registered In Last 24hrs", combined with some simple rate limiting, the current system CAN be used. Each and every registrar can use the business model of thier choosing and offer the consumers a choice as well. YOUR model, not unlike the VeriSnap model, still offers the consumer only ONE choice (which is no choice at all). Only with a varient of the current system can it still be possible that a registrant can (and does) register a dropping name without any assistance whatsoever from any "enhanced services". True, this does not happen on every name, but it certainly does happen every drop. This is fair. This is choice. Ultimately it perpetuates a system in which registrars earn an ever-smaller margin on domain names, and in which the registry can claim the need for system changes that will be passed on to the customer (the registrar). The random drop solution can't work for a number of reasons, one of which concerns reasonable limits on the random length of time in which a name is kept from the marketplace after deletion. Indeed there appears to be more than enough value in the delete pool to warrant full-time "hammering." While I agree that the "random drop" timing is a completely unworkable idea for the same reasons, both stated and unstated, I disagree that it has any effect "perpetuating" an "ever-smaller margin on domain names". Actually, it provides the individual Registrar with a choice as to what model they will subscribe to to capitalize on the dropping names, be it as an individual effort or as part of another effort (like SnapNames' "Partners"). The Afternic RRS proposal should be a starting point from which a better solution emerges. To say that it is anticompetitive is to ignore that registrars, its primary benefactors, would compete against one another to offer SSR services exactly as they now do to sell domain names. While I appreciate your loyalty to "your solution", I have to strongly disagree that it is the "only one worth looking at", especially coupled with the sticky issue that names that have not actually been "dropped" are being auctioned off by entities that are not the legal "registrants". I believe that the RAA contract does specify that each domain name must have a valid "registrant" and that entity is NOT the "Registrar" itself. To mislabel a cooperative solution as a cartel is to ignore the fact that without a registrar-friendly solution, the registrar arena will grow considerably less competitive, not moreso. Again, I fail to see how "your" proposal enhances competition in the least. -HJW- Harold Whiting
webmaster@buildable.com
805.886.4164
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|