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

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

dotsplash:

first of all I don't believe you as you don't sound like a registrant.
first of all you don't use your own domain; you post from yahoo's free
mail service. If you mailed from your own doain it would lend some
credability to your post.

to be honest ( as i am too often ) I think you are a rogue; posting to
give creedance to the WLS proposal and provide reasoning for the high
price.

get some more registrants to post from their own domains the same
reasoning then I'll believe you.

-rick

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, dotsplash wrote:

> continuation ...
>
> ok, my inetention is not to discourage registrars from making money. I understand that's
> what we are in the business. But let's play fair, follow the rules and give mass/customer
> the choice of what they want, don't exploit them.
>
> and another thing is we are here to provide feedback on WLS proposal in 2 weeks. So let's
> not divert whole group to new proposals which are never ending as in current
> circumsatances some registrars have already some system in place and I'm sure many are
> planning to develop something for their friends or elite group or auction the names or
> some may be geenrous to fix the price.
>
> So I want you all to see bigger picture and include endusers, corporates, IP community,
> website owners and registrars themselves. Now look at the WLS proposal and give
> constructive feedback. it could be :-
> 1. price is too high and market is not going to bear high retail price of $90 or $100
> 2. why exchange of name is restricted to 3 times only ?
> 3. what if people try to script waitlist to get in the queue as waitlist expires ?
> 4. why not have multi-layers of waitlist etc etc
>
> Now as an end users, instead of
> 1. setup technology & chasing the name myself, or
> 2. paying to koreans/chinese groups to pick the name for me or
> 3. paying to unpaid-dept of registrar or
> 4. watching auction of dotster/parava whole day or
> 5. payning monthly fee in thousand dollars to registrar or
> 6. paying snapnames fix price (which is not bad) but no gurantee or
> 7. paying thousands of dollars to get into elite group of some registrars or
> etc etc etc
> (it's current mess and you all know that but I've seen very closely and used myself many
> of them)
>
> so rather I'd pay $100 on WLS and utilize time on my main business and have relaxed
> sleep. Now I really don't care if registrar is making $60 per name in that and registry
> is making $40. that's not my worry as long as retail price is in my reach.
>
> Now registrar's worry is price might come down and margins are going to thin in latter
> stage then that's valid. As somebody mentioned that competition is healthy and that's
> what is market and gave example of first level registration So then let it be ..it's
> happening in first level and same there be with deleted names also.
>
> But personally I believe as long as you got right service & support then market is $100
> upwards and higher price leaves the room for current mess to continue at lower end(at
> least for one year which is test time) and down the lane proposal could be to clean lower
> end of the market also.
>
> thanks very much for listening to me ...
>
> regards,
> dotsplash "one of the registrants"
>
>
> --- dotsplash <dotsplash@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Dear all respected members of the list,
> >
> > after reading many emails, I believe genuine domain/website users are not well
> > represented here. While 99% of the website owners(individual,corporates etc) will love
> > to
> > go for WLS and like to make snapnames 100% effective which saves them from current mess
> > &
> > mightmare of picking a name if it's already registered.
> > why is it mess ? Because we (genuine users i.e. registrants) are at the mercy of
> > registrars and their friends. but that's not the system was meant for.
> > registrar were never there to get the names for their friends, or charge monthly or
> > auction the names or try to form cartel. but circumstances created the situation and
> > now
> > is the time to go in the right direction.
> > But registrar & their friends are going to create noise because of their vested
> > interest
> > which makes me think that they should not be the decision makers or part of the process
> > which is taking decision.  many of them are already making money through current status
> > quo at the expense of registrant and now they wish to form cartel.So decision should be
> > sole discretion of VGRS registry & ICANN where fair things will happen for the
> > registrant.
> > that's exactly where WLS proposal comes to rescue registrants and discourage current
> > business model and I frankly wish it gets through without giving too much important to
> > these parties who have vested interests.
> >
> > Thanks very much,
> > "Dotsplash" one of the registrant
> > --- Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
>

--
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