RE: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it, and more

[jeff@neumanfamily.us]

Mr. Kirkos,

First, the questions I presented last night were sent on my own behalf in order to further examine the issues and not on behalf of NeuStar (except to the extent that NeuLevel agrees with the position of the gTLD constituency).  In addition, NeuLevel does not express a view one way or the other on offering the WLS or even on the market viability of such a service.  Please do not associate the gTLD position against the Task Force Report as "support for the WLS."  They are two completely separate issues.

Second,  while there are some good arguments for and against the WLS (like the Dotster Statement), consider the statement given by Bruce Tonkin at the Public Forum, which I quote below:  See <http://www.icann.org/bucharest/captioning-afternoon-27jun02.htm> (Sorry, but it is a long one)

"Yes, my name is Bruce Tonkin. And I'm representing a company view, Melbourne it, rather than any other views that I might be held to have. First I want to address the issue of competition. Today, we have a service called a domain name service. There's really two fundamental commands there, I guess. And that is you can create a domain name, and you can delete a domain name.

There is competition today both as to what's the best name to create and when is the best time to create it. There's competition in terms of the prices for that domain name.

Once someone purchases a domain name, then there is competition in the best way of maybe transferring it or allocating it or optioning that domain name. When a domain name is deleted, all registrars have access to the same service, which is called "add." You basically add a domain name. There are different business models as to the best time after a name has been deleted as to trying to predict when the name will be deleted and various ways of generating the "add" commands to acquire that domain name.

The comments have been made that by introducing the WLS service will somehow reduce competition. That is not true, because when you introduce a WLS service, you have exactly the same competitive behavior.  First there is the choice as to what's the optimum time to place a WLS on a name. Some might choose to place a WLS on the name immediately, so there will be competition the instant the service stats. There will be competition to register WLS names. Then there will be those that will choose to put a WLS on a name when they believe it's about to be deleted. Again, there will be different business models in how the best way of the optimum time to apply a WLS.

There's no guarantee you'll get a WLS in that situation, because somebody else may put a WLS on the name. So there's no 100% certainty until you get a WLS. The question about is there any other service where you have 100%, there is. It's called a domain name. Once I purchase a domain name, I have 100% chance that I can use that domain name for my web site.

Getting that domain name, however, there is a probability that you might not be able to get that domain name, just as there may be a probability that you may not be able to get the WLS on your name. WLSs, like domain names, also expire. So there will also be competition in business models as to what's the best time to predict when a WLS will expire. And you will have exactly very similar types of business models again with WLS as you do for domain names. Whenever you make a change to a service, it will also have an impact on the current business models the companies have. But they will innovate and continue to compete.

The Redemption Grace Period will cause a change in registrar business models. So even introducing something as simple as that could be seen as having an impact on people's current business models. However, people will come up with other business models to gain the best advantage from the Redemption Grace Period.

In regards to price, I guess my issue there is really I think the board needs to define a process for how it handles questions regarding price. And I don't think it's appropriate for the Names Council or registrars to try and choose a price for the registry. There needs to be a more objective approach to doing that.

Finally, the main issue that I have as a registrar is really that you can game WLS just as you can game the domain name system. And the issue of transfers and delete processes are issues that are of far higher importance to the Transfers Task Force than the actual impact of WLS on its own."

Third, if you could please show me where in the gTLD Agreements it says that the policy supporting organizations can prevent Registry Services from being introduced, or where in the Agreements it says that the policy making body of ICANN can determine the price of a service, I would be interested in seeing that.  

Thanks.


>----- Original Message -----
>From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Sent: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 -0700 (PDT) 19:56:17
>
>Hello,
>
>Tonight, Dotster (owner of NameWinner) posted what
>I consider to be the
>best document to date summarizing the arguments
>against WLS. It can be
>seen here:
>
>
>It should be considered mandatory reading by anyone
>on the Names
>Council and on the ICANN Board, when considering
>the WLS proposal. I
>agree with and support the Dotster position 100%.
>
>In order to stay under my 5 posts/day limit, I'd
>like to also mention
>that when Louis Touton directed the WLS debate to
>the Task Force, it
>was to see whether at a first glance there would be
>any major negative
>effects from it. If there were negative effects,
>the full consensus
>process should be invoked, and WLS should not be
>fast-tracked. See:
>
>
>"If, however, there are specific reasons to
>conclude that the
>legitimate interests of others are likely to be
>harmed, then ICANN's
>existing obligation to seek consensus whenever
>possible before acting
>suggests that it should invoke the formal consensus
>development
>mechanisms that currently exist prior to any
>decision by the ICANN
>Board."
>
>Notice in particular the words "ICANN's existing
>obligations to seek
>consensus". However, in the post by Jeffrey Neuman
>of of Neustar at:
>
>
>he writes "I do not believe that it can be said
>that there is a
>consensus to prevent its introduction." Of course,
>Mr. Neuman has
>things completely backwards -- the consensus must
>be FOR the
>introduction of WLS, to pass the acceptance. He
>should know better.
>
>I find it interesting that Neustar is now involved
>in the debate. Given
>that Verisign and SnapNames are pretty silent on
>the lists right now
>(perhaps licking their wounds, or not wanting to
>provide free
>"discovery" in the event of lawsuits), maybe they
>can point me and Task
>Force members to some examples where monopolistic
>paid waiting lists
>are in operation, where the consumers are charged
>even if they don't
>ultimately receive the product/service? 
>
>I can get on a waiting list for many products for
>free. Or, for Toronto
>Maple Leafs season tickets, one can place a
>refundable security deposit
>only. Or for an apartment, a landlord might ask for
>a refundable
>security deposit. But, none of these are like WLS,
>where one might get
>charged for no service (if a name is renewed), and
>the price of the
>security deposit is several hundred percent higher
>than the cost of the
>service itself.
>
>Since Neustar runs various telephone number
>allocations, perhaps they
>can provide examples of where there is a "WLS-like"
>scheme to reserve
>vanity telephone numbers that are being recycled?
>Surely proponents of
>WLS can provide some examples where a WLS-like
>scheme was a solution to
>a real problem in resource allocations.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org
>list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/ms
>g00341.html
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/report-vgrs-wls-17apr0
>2.htm
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg02786.ht
>ml
--
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