[ga] GA summary 2002-03

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during 
the third week of 2002.  List archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.


				Votes

There were no ongoing votes.



			  NC teleconference

A names council teleconference was held on January 17; an MP3 
recording is available at 
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020117.NCteleconf.mp3>.

During that teleconference, Thomas Roessler and Alexander Svensson 
were confirmed as the GA's chair and alternative chair.



				Topics

(i) The structure task force.  David P. Farrar provded another great 
update on the structure task force's work.  Some bullet points: 
Draft 4 of the task force's report is out now.  The new version of 
the report leaves the question open how many members the ALSO must 
have before it may elect for board members (suggested numbers range 
 from 1,000 to 30,000).  The gTLDs, the non-commercials, and the 
intellectual property communities have published positions.  In the 
thread following his excellent initial summary, David reports that 
there is no consensus in the task force on the number of at large 
directors the board should have.  Bret Fausett commented that he 
"was under the impression that the task force's work was to center 
on possible restructuring of the DNSO", to which David replied that 
he "always saw the review taskforce more looking at DNSO 
restructuring and structure at wider ICANN structure".  Also, 
according to DPF, "most of the focus has been on how having an ALSO 
would affect the DNSO as the DNSO at present is meant to be the sole 
policy advisory body to the Board on domain name issues". 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00585.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00589.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00592.html>

In the same thread, Patrick Greenwell strongly argued against any 
quorums in the context of votes of members.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00594.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00597.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00598.html>.

(Yes, I've linked almost the entire thread, but most of it is really 
worth reading.)


(ii) WLS and deleted domains.  This (almost) was another week's 
dominant topic, with a short break in the beginning of the week.

Please note that there was extensive discussion on this.  I'm giving 
a necessarily incomplete excerpt from what has been said.  I'm 
pretty certain that many among you will point out something they 
believe to be important that I've dropped.  If you are really 
interested in this discussion's details, I'd strongly suggest you 
have a look at the threaded archive, and just use the postings I'm 
pointing to as starting points.


Probably, I should first mention Patrick Corliss' follow-up to the 
last summary, in which he asserts that "most of this discussion was 
led by OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers". To 
this, George Kirikos replied that while he's an OpenSRS reseller, he 
hopes "that the arguments I made stand on their own, regardless of 
some 'label' folks want to place on my forehead". 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00499.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00501.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00516.html>.


Rick Wesson, speaking on behalf of his employer, posted "Alice's 
Registry Response to VGRS Registrar Wait List Proposal".  In this 
message, Rick briefly reviews the developments which lead to the WLS 
proposal, the tragedy of the commons, and Speculation, "A 
Non-Constant Sume Game".  He then analyzes the proposal, 
specifically elaborating on the price, on transparency, and 
monopolies.  He then proposes four "required" changes: "Set the 
wholesale price of a WLS subscription to $4.50".  "Require the 
registry to display the registrar that places a WLS subscription on 
a domain in the registry whois". Enable registrants to opt out of 
WLS.  Fix the overflow pool problem by enforcing contracts.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00492.html>



However, the WLS discussion was really brought back to life by Ron 
Wiener of SnapNames, who posted a file named "Greatest Good vs. 
Benefits of the Few.pdf".  In this document, Wiener produces some 
numbers on his customer base, some of them presented in a pie-chart 
which was erroneously (as he later corrected) labeled "as of January 
2000".  While you are looking at the numbers and (in particular) the 
pie chart, I'd strongly suggest that you do the maths in your head 
and always use some estimate of revenue per client group as the 
basis for any comparisons you do (or, at least, do that kind of 
comparison in addition).

The bottom line of the paper seems to be that "unlike some 
commentators, who concede without embarrassment that they cater 
primarily to speculators, SnapNames' focus has always been the 
mainstream customer: the 'little guy.' Because a number of postings 
have criticized SnapNames and WLS as either catering to, or unfairly 
benefiting professional speculators, we feel compelled to 
demonstrate [...] that precisely the reverse is true".  In line with 
this, the headline of that particular paragraph claims that "WLS 
Offers the Greatest Good to Greatest Number - Primarily Mainstream 
Users".  In the next part, Wiener tries to back these claims with 
the numbers and pie chart mentions above, and also elaborates how 
retail pricing and the structure of the customer base are related.

The paper also criticizes, under the headline "What's Wrong with 
the Consensus Process Today?", the registrars' constituency's 
January 9 teleconference.  Wiener urges "the broader community not 
to let these special interests [those represented in the registrars' 
constituency - ed.] hijack the decision-making process to the 
detriment of the other registrars, and the mainstream consumer". In 
the last part of the document, Wiener covers some more specific 
arguments, such as "defensive WLS subscriptions", "WLS will not 
solve the system load problems", "The WLS will be gamed by 
speculators", and "Differentiation between registrars will 
decrease".
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00511.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00573.html>.


In a follow-up to Ron's message, Ross Wm. Rader points out that the
teleconference mentioned "was a constituency conference call, not an
accredited registrar conference call". "The DNSO process only
accounts for those that have self-selected to participate in the
process," he continues.  He then goes on to address various claims
made in Wiener's message, including the number of registrars to
oppose the WLS during said conference call. Finally, Ross points out
that he is "deeply disappointed with this obvious attempt to
distract the participants in this discussion [...]."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00503.html>

Ron Wiener replied to this message, stressing the accuracy of his
facts concerning registrars' participation in the conference call.
According to him, the number of (constituency) members represented
in the conference call "is of no relevance whatsoever".  He then
also disputes what "opposition" to the proposal actually means,
since only a few registrars were opposed to the proposal
"unconditionally", while others would be interested in offereing WLS
if it was modified.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00512.html>

Rick Wesson's comment on this message was that "over 90% of all
domains registered by registrars were represented.  Another way to
look at this is that over 90% of the RRP transations generated by
registrars were in attendance on the call." He then asked Ron and
Ross to "get back to dealing with substantive arguments".
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00521.html>

Donny Simonton pointed out that he "was the one registrar who said
'when Verisign goes live with the WLS, we would offer it.'" After
discussing the impact the WLS could (in his opinion) have on
SnapNames, and quoting a speculator according to whom a high price
for WLS would be good for speculators, Donny came back to the
conference call: "Trust me nobody on the conference call had
anything good to say about the WLS sysem except for myself.  [...] I
like the concept of the WLS, but not the current implementation!"
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00556.html>

To this, Ron replied that "if the WLS does not get through this
process, please do not worry about the health of SnapNames".  Also,
according to him, "everyone seems to underestimate the complexity of
building a system like this".  Concerning economic theories on what
kind of price would be preferable for what kind of customer, Wiener
responds that the only way to actually check these would be to try
things on the market, and that his firm can only offer their own
experiences and historical data.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00520.html>


Another set of comments on the WLS proposal was posted by Jim Archer 
to the registrars list on behalf of Registration Technologies; a 
link to this was posted by George Kirikos.  He points out that this 
is one of the previously silent registrars talking.  According to 
George "they made one of the best posts I've seen *against* the 
WLS".  Points of criticism include (from the Executive Summary): 
"Verisign's stated desire to enter the secondary domain marketplace 
[...] in which they currently have no presence [...] with a stated 
objective to eliminate existing participants in that margket 
segment."; "We question why Verisign is permitted to control this 
comment process."; material received was incomplete (a service 
agreement to which registrars would be subject was missing); 
"additionally, the time frame for preparing comments was very 
short".  The detailed comments are then organized into "ethical 
issues", "potential legal issues" (divided into "monopoly and 
antitrust", "unlicensed commodity trading" [does trading "domain 
futures" require a license?], and "contract terms"), "practical 
issues", and "practical and administrative issues".

It's a five-page PDF, read it yourself for details.

<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00575.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01852.html>.



Eric Schneider of unames.com posted a "recommendation" under the 
subject "WLS - Better Margins for Registrars".  The purpose of his 
response is, he says, "to propose a pricing model to demonstrate how 
the above requirement can be met".  According to Eric, "it is not 
only the obligation, duty, and responsibility but also the time for 
a registry to come full circle and provide reusability services." 
He then suggests a different pricing model for the WLS, which I'll 
leave for the list archive to explain.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00706.html>



Finally, there was quite a bit of discussion on forming a working 
group to create input on the WLS proposal.  My suggestion on this is 
that the GA itself should go into "working group mode", with some 
participants in the discussion operating as a drafting committee.

Some helpful input was already provided by Ross Rader, who posted a 
list prepared by the registrars in Montevideo last year, containing 
"basic principles that should be fulfilled by any proposal put 
forward".  Similar input from other constituencies would be most 
welcome!

<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00624.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00630.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00635.html>, 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00702.html>.



(iii) Reseller representation in the DNSO process.  The fact that 
Eric Schneider is posting from the domain of a reseller of a 
registrar triggered a brief discussion on representing resellers in 
the DNSO process.  According to William Walsh, "it is time the 
non-registrar regtistration service providers have some say and 
input in the process." Ross Rader agrees that "there really is no 
appropriate home for the Intermediate Supplier Stakeholders." He 
suggests that it may be "worthwhile that someone investigate whether 
or not the interests of the ISS's and tose of the [ISP constituency] 
are compatible," or whether the ISPC could "accommodate an extended 
membership consisting of firms that don't necessarily qualify under 
their current bylaws."  He then gives a link to some of criteria for 
a new constituency.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00712.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00732.html>.

Good night,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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