ICANN/GNSO
DNSO and GNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[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:
: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:39 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Proposal for fairer round-robin process in future landrush events - Mk2

 
With reference to Landrush queues, submitted by registrars, I believe they should make them equal length.
 
This could be largely achieved by giving each registrar a mandatory queue of (say) 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".
 
In this way, the majority of registrars would have identical chances in the round-robin process.
 
There would be a problem for the registrars who submitted even larger queues than 5000, but they would still have the same chance as everyone else for their first 5000 applications and only after 5000 would their chances diminish. In other words, ALL registrars would have the same chance for their first 5000 applications - in the phase where the domains most in demand would be taken.
 
Alternatively, you simply increase the threshold from 5000 to a higher number.
 
IN CONTRAST...
 
What we saw in .biz2B were 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.
 
Others (like the Lubsens' secondary registrar DomainPro) also played the short list game.
 
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
 
The fact that Moshe Fogel is a Director, close to the heart of Afilias, and was acting CEO for a period, with a close involvement in Afilias policies, makes this easily-abused process all the more disappointing.
 
So yes - I strongly advocate that future landrushes would benefit from equal-length queues if the round-robin process is used again.
 
Why is it left to ordinary members of the public to express these obvious principles? Do you suppose the industry insiders could not think of these solutions themselves?
 
Of course they could. The "anything goes" approach was conscious policy. But it was NOT "the fair distribution of the DNS" that ICANN was mandated to uphold and oversee.
 
Ordinary consumers, as usual, came low down the list of priorities.
 
Richard H


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>