Re: [ga] Secondary market - criteria?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear WXW,
The more things go, the more the ICANN and the GA with it seems to become 
the association of the Registrars Industry directed by VRSN and to fully 
forget about its IANA duties.

Thomas' position seems to be well structured in the interest of the 
Registrars and to some extent of a reasonable Registry. But I doubt that 
Versign can now afford being a reasonable Registry - as any other Registry 
under ICANN contract. And frankly I fail to see the interest to the network 
of the Registrars.

The only two interested parties are the internet users and the internet 
domain owners. They are only interested in the IANA functions and will 
decide at the end of the day. So I think it is of no real help to Verisign 
to make them believe things can be negotiated/arranged. This is only making 
VRSN spend money, resource, users trust they will soon desperately need.

Reality is that today that kind of practice, added to the Staff, to the 
BoD, to the sunrise, etc... is  heartsickening an increasingly large number 
of people round the planet. What is new is that these people are no more 
alternative knights or vindicative dreamers. They are governments, 
international institutions, multinational companies, internet 
professionnals more and more ill at ease with this illness of a part of the 
US citizens consisting in tying to sell everything which belongs to 
everyone (life and human genome, corn seeds, fresh air and smoke, names and 
privacy, etc.). Sept 11th has given a respite everyone supporting the 
hurted USA, but that respite will not stay for ever.

The outcome is quite well known. It has been explained by an European 
Member of the GAC in MdR 2001: "as long as the AmerICANN Joke is not 
disserving Europe we will let it go but if the situation changes we will 
put an end to that fun". I suppose Japan and China think the same. TLDs, 
IPv6, privacy issues are starting to be too much. When the IANA is managed 
by the ITU/T or EDIFACT things will be clearer, but I am not sure Verisign 
will financially take the transition easily.

So the real good advice to Verisign is to tell them: respect ICP-1, fullfil 
your share in the IANA functions, reduce your costs, respect the users, 
disengage from the Staff, be cautious about the DoC, dont spend $M 80 to 
show you need money, stabilize your business and keep yourself credible, 
keep yourself out of any "Locckheed suspicion". And if you want to start 
something new of no interest to the Internet user (ask Eric first), make 
the ICANN BoD to take the risk and to ask the DNSO. Banning the IDNO from 
the DNSO, starting your own GA and taking over the ALSC may hide the 
reality a while, but it does not change it.

Frankly, what all this merchandizing has to do with the DNS?
Jefsey

On 14:28 13/01/02, William X Walsh said:
>Thomas,
>
>Very well articulated position.  I find myself agreeing with most
>every point you make.  I hope others take the time to read it with an
>open mind as well.
>
>Sunday, Sunday, January 13, 2002, 5:15:48 AM, 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
>--
>
>"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
>the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
>interprets the truth."
>-- Jean Giradoux
>
>--
>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

--
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