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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Geroge and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > George Kirikos wrote:
> > > It's an imperfect analogy, though, as domains are "one of a kind",
> > and
> > > can't be perfectly substituted, like RAM chips or gold or pork
> > bellies.
> > > The quantity is always going to be exactly 1, regardless of price.
> > > There isn't really a "curve" at all, there are just "points" in
> > space
> > > in the price-quantity graph. One can't buy 2 sex.com's, or 11
> > > eBay.com's.
> >
> >   I can't quite completely buy your last statement in this analogy.
> > For instance, your not quite right that one cannot buy more than
> > one Sex.com.  On can buy/register sex.biz, sex.net, sex.org (This
> > one would be interesting from a potential content standpoint >;) ),
> > six.info, sex.museum, sex.coop, and perhaps if congress has it's
> > way, sex.kids.  Given that yes these other potential derivatives
> > ( Using a wall street term here ) they are not the exact same a
>
> Derivatives are something completely different in the finance context
> (they refer to "contingent claims", such as options and futures, swaps)

  Yes but I wasn't using the term "Derivatives" in the finance context.
I was using the term "Derivatives" in the context of this thread as
a comparison term for your statements.  So I think you may be
taking what I said out of that context.  ????

>
>
> > sex.com, they may be used in exactly the same way and are
> > very similar sounding and than also could therefore be considered
> > in the potential situation of a Domain Name dispute, as has already
> > happened with Sex.com once, as confusingly similer in a UDRP
> > filing.  Big mess eh?
>
> Because they can be used in a similar way doesn't make them perfect
> substitutes.

  I didn't say "Perfect" substitutes, but confusing enough for a UDRP
filing to be generated or otherwise requested, which if you review
the UDRP filing thus far you will find many such similar filings
on similar Domain Names.  Hence the problem or concern/mess.

> For instance, one can use butter or margarine on toast. If
> the price of butter went up, some folks might substitute more margarine
> instead. But, the Warhol's "Campbell Soup Can" (sex.biz) isn't quite a
> substitute for Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" (sex.com), even though they can
> both hang in a frame on the wall.

  True.  But I did not say " Warhol's "Campbell Soup Can" (sex.biz)"
nor ""Mona Lisa" (sex.com)" just plain sex.biz and sex.com being similar
in and of themselves enough to again likely generate a UDRP filing
yet again.

>
>
> I was re-reading Elliot Noss' initial post where he wrote "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."

  We [INEGroup] have always agreed that DN's in the hands of those
that will put them to the best use is desirable, but not so desirable as
to eliminate any potential registrant registering those names for the use
that they might have in mind.  It is also very doubtful that such a notion
as you are suggesting here would lead to more revenue for registrars
or registries, as many of the registrars and now it seems some registries
with the WLS proposal put forth by VRSN obviously indicates.

>
>
> This reminded me of the important "Coase Theorem", from the economics
> and legal realm (Nobel prize winning). Briefly, if we have no
> transactions costs (i.e. trading in secondary markets is efficient) it
> doesn't matter how we allocate the "legal entitlement" to something
> (e.g. ownership of a domain name). The people who most desire them will
> end up with them in the end, leading to an "efficient" allocation, via
> Elliot's definition.

  This is likely the case in most instances, yes.  However not in all.

> I think if this is the goal, one has to think of
> the costs created by various schemes, how transfers work, how "price
> discovery" and "registration rights" are handled.

  Registration rights for the time being anyway are already determined.
How those rights ar transferred is not with respect to DN's.  And this is
at the crux of this debate I believe.

>
>
> The "low cost" scheme that might maximize efficiency (allocational
> efficiency) might ultimately involve eliminating the notion of
> "expiring domains" entirely (not making this a proposal, just tossing
> out a possible implication of that line of thought) and make them all
> "owned" and non-expiring.

  This is a good idea IMHO.  However it doesn't seem to be shared
presently with the ICANN BOD and staff and especially is not shared
with the Registrars.

> If charges were only made for changes in
> ownership, changes in DNS, etc., so that domains that were dormant cost
> $0/yr to maintain, then from an efficiency point of view that could
> actually enhance things -- no one would be sitting around waiting for
> domains to expire.

  Good point.  But this implies ownership of a Domain Name.  That
is not currently excepted.

> Instead, they'd be directly contacting the owner of
> a dormant domain, to buy it. Rules would need to be setup in such a
> scheme, though, where the owner could not be found; e.g. maybe a series
> of contact addresses, with a line of succession that would be followed
> if the owner could not be found (e.g. I could appoint a legal trustee,
> if I should meet my untimely demise, who would look after the domain's
> value).

  Yes this can be accomplished in a Trust arrangement.  But there would
need
to be exceptance that there is ownership of a Domain Name.  That concept
was rejected some time ago by the ICANN BoD and staff...

> It would be another business for law firms (or registrars), as
> they would be natural trustees for most people (while lawyers may come
> and go, law firms last a long time....). I don't know if there's a
> "legal constituency"  in the DNSO,

Yes there is it is called the IP constituency.

> but probably the policy people at
> ICANN and/or their economic advisors would be familiar with the Coase
> theorem, and how it can shape one's thinking in trying to create
> efficient structures.
>
> Thus, it might be that the presence of the deletions themselves are
> having the negative impact on the secondary market (i.e. impacting
> Afternic, Great Domains, etc.). Transitioning to an "owned" system
> would be a big change, though, so careful thought would be needed to
> flesh out all the implications.

  Agreed.  And we [INEGroup] advocated ownership of Domain Names
some time ago.  ICANN rejected that concept.

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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