<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Secondary market - criteria?
Thomas,
Very well articulated position. I find myself agreeing with most
every point you make. I hope others take the time to read it with an
open mind as well.
Sunday, Sunday, January 13, 2002, 5:15:48 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Rick Wesson has asked this GA for criteria any proposal for handling
> the deleted domains market has to fulfill. Even though many who are
> writing here (with the notable exception of Bret Fausett) seem to be
> blantantly opposed to the WLS proposal, this topic is generally
> worth discussing.
> Verisign wants input from the registrars constituency on the WLS
> proposal by January 18 (that's next Friday). This indicates that we
> don't have a whole lot of time. For this reason, I'd strongly
> suggest that we don't bother debating whether or not we need a
> working group, what mailing list should be used by that working
> group, who should chair it, and whether the Pope needs a
> representative. Eric's anonymous "friend" is quite right that it's
> that kind of stuff which has ruined the GA in the past.
> Instead, let's try to understand the problems on this very list.
> In fact, I think that the requirements posted by Bret in
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00194.html> are mostly a
> good starting point for such a debate.
> But one of them is particularly interesting: "the current registrant
> should make his or her decision to renew blind to the value placed
> on that domain name by prospective registrants".
> It's interesting because it's just the opposite of the suggestion
> posted by Elliot Noss. In fact, what Bret suggests is deliberately
> adding more inefficiency to the domain market by trying to make sure
> that current registrants of a domain will release it to the pool of
> available domains as soon as it's not used. The philosophy seems to
> be: You lease a domain at USD such-and-such year, use it, and
> return it to the pool for the next one to use it.
> The problem with this approach is, of course, that domains are worth
> more to some than they are to others, and that they cost still less.
> Now, as Noss describes in his message, when you combine this with
> traditional domain pricing, you end up with a price gap which can be
> exploited by speculators - or by those registrars who offer
> back-snapping services for domains, or by the registry.
> HOW precisely the money is really distributed is irrelevant from the
> point of view of those domain name owners who actually want to use
> their domain (and don't just want to trade them).
> From this point of view, RRS (afternic), WLS, and the current system
> are all equally bad, and prize-driving. In fact, figure A of the
> Afternic proposal gives some nice insight in what happens: RRS
> maximizes registrar earning (thus, it's really just a
> make-some-registrars-quite-rich scheme), the WLS scheme splits most
> of the money from the gap between the registry and speculators
> (while making some ways to speculate considerably more expensive at
> the same time), and the current system has the interesting feature
> that the back-order services work best and cheapest when there is
> few competition, but inevitably become expensive as soon as more
> competition arrives, and the chance that any particular player gets
> a domain decreases. But still, the current approach will shove a
> lot of money into a lot of registrars' pockets. It's just not good
> for the non-speculating registrants...
> Now, what happens when you follow Elliot Noss and drop Bret's
> postulate that current registrants shouldn't know about the value of
> their domain? First of all, there would be an incentive to keep all
> domains but the most worthless ones - the latter ones being returned
> to the pool of available domains. This may generate predictable
> revenue for registrars and the registry. It may also put those out
> of business (or at least make business more difficult for them) who
> are currently hunting for deleted domains. It would, finally, make
> life more difficult (though not impossible) for speculators.
> It would, of course, also put some of the money into registrants'
> pockets which ends up with registrars, the registry, or professional
> speculators according to the other proposals, and with the current
> state of affairs, where selling a domain name does not seem to be
> something mainstream registrants do, and where many registrants just
> may not know that their domain has a value.
> Quite frankly, the more I think about this, the more I like the idea
> of letting registrants know about their domains' value, and the more
> I dislike ideas like the ones from RRS, or like Bret's postulate,
> which both just make sure that the money does _not_ end up with
> average registrants.
> Now, what about WLS? It would, ultimately, be put out of business,
> but it would, on the other hand, probably not do much damage to the
> development of a healthy market.
--
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
-- Jean Giradoux
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|