Re: [ga] Secondary market - criteria?

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

Thomas and all assembly members,

  I agree in principal that there doesn't seem to be anyone that
is in favor of Verisigns WLS proposal, and time is too short
now to debate it further.  However the Poll that I posted
for gaining a definitive consensus will be helpful in settling the
WLS issue.

  I noticed that you have not participated in the Poll on the
WLS proposal.  I would encourage you to do so as most
of the active GA participating members have done thus far.

  On the other hand, the perceived need for a WG for Delete
would thus far seem to be in order and Bret's ideas as
one set of parameters are good starting points for that
WG to consider in discussion and debate, but not the
only set of ideas for such a debate and discussion to
be conducted within a WG structure.

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.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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

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