[ga] Re: [icann-delete] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

["Joyce Lin" <joyce@007names.com>]

Elliot,
Regarding your domain "right" issue I like to touch it up a little bit. I
think as soon as a domain name expires it becomes a "non-ownership" state
and the right to it should belong to the general public. We registrars are
just providing the infrastructure for the general public to obtain the right
in the open market and the registries are providing the stewardship for the
domain owners or registrants.

You are right, the registry load is the registry's issue and the problem has
been mitigated since the creation of the auto batch server. If there will be
no new rules (let's say a registered name needs to be actively used or it
will be lost) imposed from outside or higher authorities on the allocation
of the expired names, the free market and  speculators will dictate the
market and the outcomes.  Any proposal on the table will hurt or benefit
some registrars or registry.  That is why I have been less optimistic about
resolving the issue in a absolutely fair way to the consumers, registrars
and registry. We may ultimately have to keep the status quo with some minor
modifications or go to EBay and work on some sensible distributions of the
proceeds from the sales as you've credited me for proposing it.

Joyce


VGRS seems mthe current system seems The issues of registry load and the the
> allocation of expired/expiring names are being mixed together
unnecessarily.

As long as speculators are the major force behind the market, I'm pretty
pessimistic about finding a good solution that will benefit the consumers

> I wanted to take a bit of a "clean-sheet" approach to this discussion as
the
> points I wish to communicate cut across a number of different threads on a
> number of different lists.
>
> There are really four topics I wish to raise as follows:
>
> - Who has the "right" to deal with expired/expiring names?
> - The mixing in this discussion of two seperate issues, registry load and
> the allocation of expired/expiring names;
> - The inefficiency that results from any flat-price solution;
> - A way forward.
>
> Who has the "right" to expired/expiring names?
> -----------------------------------------------
> This is an issue that creates an interesting sub-text to this entire
> discussion, yet has not been fully examined. There are three potential
> claimants for this right and three possible states for these names.
> Claimants include registrants, registry and registrars. States include
> unexpired, expired in the grace period and expired o/s the grace period.
> There are two things that are clear. First, that no one party is clearly
> entitled to stake a claim. Registrars are limited by the terms of 3.7.5 of
> the RAA which require that names be put back in the pool if not renewed.
The
> registry is limited by its role as monopoly technical supplier and by the
> Registry agreement which entitles it to a fee for the services it is
> contracted to perform and confers upon it no property rights beyond that.
> Registrants are limited by a number of practical issues including their
> limited rights in a name and their diffuse nature.
>
> What is clear to me is that this IS NOT a function of a registrars terms
of
> service, nor is it an inherent right contained in the registry agreement.
>
> At the same time we must keep our eye on the fact that the role of
> registrars and registry is, most purely, to efficiently administer the
> allocation and provisioning of domain names. This means that the best
> approach is the one that puts names into the hands of those who would put
> them to the most use. Names in the hands of those who most desire them
will
> lead to a fuller utilization of the Internet, more value for users and
more
> revenue for registrars and registries.
>
> This point should not be seen as at odds with an egalitarian (as opposed
to
> equitable) view of domain names and first-come-first-served ("FCFS"), but
I
> realize this is a point that would be the subject of much debate. What is
> interesting today is that we are at a unique time and place in the history
> of the DNS which makes this less contentious. We have one extremely mature
> namespace in .com/.net/.org. It is almost certain to be the largest
> namespace throughout the lifecycle of the current DNS. It also has a
> secondary market that is more evolved than any other will ever be. We also
> have the recent introduction of new gTLDs that provide a fresh supply of
> names. This means any solution effected can be tailored to the current
> circumstance.
>
> We must also remember that there are two groups of registrants that we
must
> consider, current registrants and potential registrants. They have
distinct
> interests. Current registrants have rights around their existing names,
both
> in terms of security from losing a name through inadvertance and in excess
> economic value. Potential registrants benefit from being able to
efficiently
> obtain names that are currently owned. With the introduction of new gTLDs
> potential registrants have, and will continue to have more and better
> alternatives. The maximum value in the secondary market exists right now,
> today.
>
> At the end of the day the competing claims of registries and registrars
are
> likely subordinate to those of registrants. Accordingly, any solution
should
> start with this underpinning.
>
> Registry load and the allocation of expired/expiring names
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> It has been noted by a number of people in this debate, and has been my
> position for many months, that the issues of registry load and the the
> allocation of expired/expiring names are being mixed together
unnecessarily.
>
> I wish to add my voice to the chorus saying that these issues are related
> only remotely, almost accidentally. There have been a number of very good
> suggestions as to simple steps the registry could take to lessen the load.
> There are a couple additional points worth noting here. First, the current
> solution is no longer broken. While I am not a fan of the status quo, the
> registry has weathered the storm and there seems to currently be no
> appreciable impact on our day-to-day business (which was not the case a
> short time ago). An additional measure or two (a modified check command,
> additional, transparent compliance, all names dropping in real time and a
> published drop list are the easiest and most effective IMHO) would make
this
> a non-issue.
>
> It is worth noting my personal dealings with the registry on the question
of
> load have been positive and I was impressed with their genuine desire to
> solve the issues at hand.
>
> This last point leads me to feel comfortable that these issues are not
being
> presented as being directly connected and can be dealt with seperately. I
> would, of course, love to hear Chuck confirm this.
>
>
> The Inefficiency of flat pricing
> ---------------------------------
> The current market for domain names is characterized by flat-priced supply
> and variable-priced demand. I do not take a politial position on this, I
> merely note it as observation. This market inefficiency (again observation
> not position) has lead to the existance of a robust secondary market. It
has
> also lead to a significant amount of the current CNO namespace sitting
> unused.
>
> I have strong reservations about any solution geared at the expiring
market
> that magnifies that inefficiency. By definition it leaves money on the
table
> and leaves demand unfulfilled at the same time. The worst of both worlds.
> Ideally we could find a solution that was able to create a robust,
efficient
> secondary market which would benefit registrars and the registry, but if
> done properly would most benefit registrants.
>
> A suggested way forward
> ------------------------
> Unfortunately, for me, the existing WLS proposal is not acceptable. The
> inefficiencies are large and the economics are miles away from either fair
> or realistic. With significantly re-worked economics it could be an
> acceptable interim step, but I am not sure we need an interim step,
> especially given the decoupling of the registry load issue.
>
> It seems to me there is a way forward that addresses all of the above
> issues. I would suggest two important modifications to the existing Peter
> Girard proposal. An unlimited bidding period and the bulk of the fees
going
> to existing registrants rather than registrars.
>
> All names should be available to "bid" on at any time. A "bid" by a
> prospective registrant would require an administrative fee collected by a
> registrar, shared with registry and would be available for acceptance by
the
> existing registrant at any time. A sucessful transaction would lead to a
fee
> to both registry and registrars. An example:
>
> - Potential registrant places a bid of $150 on abcd.com and for doing so
> pays a non-refundable administrative fee to registrar x of $10 and in turn
> registrar pays registry $5;
> - Original registrant is made aware of his ability to "transfer" the name
> and any unexpired term to a potential registrant for $120;
> - If original registrant decides to accept he contacts the existing
> registrar of record and informs him of his desire;
> - If the registrars are different the $30 transaction fee is split 1/3
each,
> if the same than the split is equal between registrar and registry;
> - The fee would be a % of bid, capped at a relatively low number ($30?).
>
> To be clear, this is described in very brief terms and would need
> significant rounding out as well as a champion so please work the
principals
> not the specifics.
>
> This solution would provide significant benefits to everyone involved in
> both an equitable and palatable fashion. It would also keep both
registrars
> and registries in their role of market makers not market participants and
> would create a level of efficiency that would lead to increased revenues,
> increased registrant satisfaction and, perhaps most importantly, maximized
> use of the namespace.
>
> The original administrative fee would/should act so as to deter nearly all
> wasteful behaviour. Technically, it need be no more complicated than an
> interface between the SRS and EBay's open APIs (full credit here to Joyce
> Lin in Montevideo, if only we would have listened to you then!). It could
be
> completely done by the registry, by the registry with technical partners,
> Peter could do it, or it could be put out to a completely new tender
> process. I know we would love to build it (but to be clear we are not
> throwing our hat in the ring whatsoever). I know perhaps fifty people
> reading this message would love to build it. That kind of excites me,
> thinking of all of the extremely capable people who could nail this
> technically. Innovation would abound if we let it.
>
> The single largest beneficiary would be the registry. Ok by me. The
largest
> cumulative benefit would accrue to registrants. Again, that works for me.
I
> think this would be an absolutely elegant outcome for everyone.
>
> Regards
>
> Elliot Noss
> Tucows inc.
> 416-538-5494
>
>

--
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