[ga] Round-robin process... a Registry leader joins the debate
Title: Help Last week I posted my arguments for equal *minimum*
queue lengths for all registrars in round-robin processes at
landrush.
Each registrar would submit a minimum of 5000
applications. If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces with
customers orders, then the remaining unused applications up to five
thousand would simply be "Blank Applications". My argument for this was that it
would prevent registrars hijacking the process with very short lists for a few
friends/clients.
For example, we saw in .biz2B some incredibly short queues from
certain registrars, designed to "game" the system - against the public interest
- for the benefit of the registrar themselves or a favoured client.
For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their rivals by
applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for Joshua Blacker, a
Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they were. They registered NO
other domains for any other customer. They had simply used their registrar
privilege to help themselves.
Other registrars operated similar lists.
After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use of short
queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. Afilias refused to do
anything about this, and ICANN - approached through Dan Halloran - would not
even enter into dialogue over the problem.
Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, Moshe
Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he submitted a
normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his second company, he
submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured clients. As a result, his
applications effectively queue-jumped most of his rivals, and Moshe himself
obtained www.domains.info
In a private response to my GA-list post, the leading figure of one of the
NewTLD registries challenged my argument. I am not disclosing which registry it
was, but you can read his e-mail below, and my own response to him below
that.
I personally think that the Registries should come out into the open and
engage in dialogue on lists like this one. In the stone-cold silence from Dan
Halloran, and the refusal of ICANN to answer serious concerns, I believe issues
such as registrar exploitation of process HAS to be discussed, and discussed
openly. We are talking about the unfair distribution of the DNS and letting down
consumers. There are questions which need answering, and answering in
public.
Richard Henderson
(The Registry "private response" below...)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 8:29
PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal for fairer
round-robin process in future landrush events - Mk2
Richard,
Without commenting on the merit of your proposal, you seem to believe
that these issues are incredibly simple to figure out. Well, your proposal
completely discriminates against the small registrar that does not do that many
applications. For example, if a small registrar has 1000 customers and
submits 1000 applications to reflect the marks that their customers have.
Under your system then they would have to have 4000 blank applications.
This means that 4/5 of their applications are blank. Which means that
there is a high probability that none (or a very few) of their customers would
be able to get their domian names simply because their registrar is small.
Please
explain in detail how that would be any more fair than the existing systems that
were in place.
These
issues are not as easy to solve as you make it out to be.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * And MY response to him, rebutting his arguments:
From: Richard Henderson
20th January 2003
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks for your comments. Of course things are not
simplistic. But the CUSTOMER will have exactly as much chance of getting the
name through a list with 20 applications and 4980 blank applications as he/she
would have through a list with 5000 applications and 0 blank
applications.
The CUSTOMERS interests would therefore be
served.
I do not believe the distribution of the DNS should
be administered for the sake of the distributor, but even if I did, the small
registrar would at least get a proportion of their applications registered in
relation to the scale of their outfit.
Why should the system be set up to damage the fair
distribution of the DNS, just in order to subsidise small outfits? How can that
possibly be justified?
Nobody is "owed a living" by the
world.
The fairest possible method of distribution TO
consumers should be executed. That underlies ICANN's mandate.
It may be good to have a variety of registrars
offering a range of services, but none of them are essential, and the Internet
is not being run as a charity to registrars.
Indeed, the incentive to attract more customers to
fill up the 5000 applications (and get proportionately more actual
registrations) should have the effect of driving down prices, which is good for
the consumer, instead of driving up prices which was the effect of the short
list game.
It would be hard indeed to justify to DoC or the
worldwide public a policy which unnecessarily inflated prices when there is
clear consensus that domain prices should be reduced wherever
possible.
The DNS is a worldwide resource which should be
made available to the world in the fairest way possible, without interference
and harm to the process by those entities (Registries and Registrars) who are,
after all, merely suppliers who should accept the public dimensions and
responsibilities of their industry as a condition of their involvement and
commerce.
The public interest has to be served
first.
It is NOT in the public interest to allow an
"unfair distribution" of the DNS.
If you still beg to differ, I have a few final
words to say to you, as the executor of one of these round
robins:
Joshua Blacker Signature Domains .biz2B
Moshe Fogel .info LR2
kind regards - and genuine thanks for engaging in
dialogue -
Richard Henderson
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
Copy of my original mail posted on this GA
list:
|