Re: [nc-transfer] RE: Proposal to Proceed

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Comments inline...

> [Gomes, Chuck] I don't have a clue what is ill defined with regard to
> deletions.  It is very clearly defined from the registry point of view.
> Moreover, the current practice with regard to deletions is fairly and
> uniformly enforced for all registrars by VGRS.

If this is the case, then it should be reasonably easy to answer this
question - "how long does it take for a domain name to be deleted?"

If this question isn't easy to answer, then I would prefer that the above
comment is restated thusly "...the current practice with regards to
deletions is fairly uniformly enforced for all registrars by VGRS."

(On an unrelated note, this is also the same enforcement branch of VGRS that
is doing such a wonderful job ensuring that Exhibit B concerning the
transfer of domain registrations between registrars is enforced so
even-handedly).

> It would be accurate to say
> that registrars have built various business models for the purposes of
> grabbing deleted names.  Those business models are essentially the cause
of
> the whole deleted names issue coming up in the first place.

Keep in mind folks that its also accurate to say that registrars have built
various business models for the purpose of grabbing regular names as well.

> [Gomes, Chuck] As far as we can tell, most of these competing services, if
> not all, cater to speculator registrants.  Even SnapNames admits that
about
> half of their SnapBacks are probably from speculators.  It would be very
> interesting to know what percentage of customers are speculators for the
> other competing business models.  It would also be very interesting to
find
> out how many non-speculator registrants are involved in the competing
> business models.  I have never been one that believes that speculation is
> necessarily wrong, but I am one who believes that an average,
non-speculator
> registrant should have as good a chance at getting a name as a speculator
> registrant.  That definitely is not the case today.  Under the WLS, this
> would be improved significantly.  If my assessment is correct, is it fair
to
> conclude that the members of the transfer task force are more concerned
> about speculator interests than those of non-speculator registrants?  At a
> bare minimum, I would think that the task force would try to validate who
> the prospective registrants are for the competing services.

Unfortunately, this only describes a strategy that puts a premium on Chuck's
belief that "average, non-speculator registrant should have as good a chance
at getting a name as a speculator registrant" and discounts any competitive
market strategy that believes otherwise. There is no reason to assume that
this small portion of the business won't foster the growth and continuance
of diverse business models (and therefore knock-down drag-out competition)
as has been found in the primary market since competition was originally
introduced at the registrar level.

While I can't say that the TF is more concerned with any class of registrant
than another, I think it would be fair to say that the TF is concerned with
customer choice and competition.


> [Gomes, Chuck] Would they exit the market because consumers now have a
> better option?  If so, is that bad?  If the WLS would seriously damage
these
> other businesses, why wouldn't they participate in the WLS to make up the
> difference?  It would be open to all registrars on equal terms.

Registrars would exit the market because there would only be one viable
option. Consumers would not have a chance to deem it better or worse because
there would be no decision making process that included competitive options.

> [Gomes, Chuck] If I understand what is meant here, then this is a correct
> statement.  If the WLS is implemented, there would be no technical reasons
> why other competing services would be prohibited.

What about the practical issue that this creates - WLS would have first
chance to pick over the deleting names and register them before the
competitive options even had a chance. This doesn't sound like equal access
anymore....

> [Gomes, Chuck] Who are you referring to when you say 'consumer?'  If
> 'consumer' means the average, non-speculator registrant, it is easy to see
> that they would be very frustrated by the status quo because they hardly
> have any chance at all when competing against the speculators who have
> elaborate systems in place to capture deleted names.  As I noted earlier,
> the Redemption Grace Period would provide relief for inadvertent deletions
> and we would be willing to consider implementing an interim procedure
within
> the WLS to cover this concern until a redemption period is implemented via
> the ICANN process.

If consumer means "anyone who buys names" the argument sounds a little bit
different. Its a much bigger market than just "average joe" and "joe
speculator". This is one of the fundamental reasons why a free market
approach is so important.

> [Gomes, Chuck] This is blatantly false unless of course 'consumer' is
> defined as speculator.  Speculators are definitely better off with the
> status quo.  But as already noted, under the WLS, the average,
> non-speculator consumer who wants an already registered name would have a
> better chance at getting it at a more reasonable price without having to
buy
> it from a speculator.  Of course, my argument falls apart if the WLS is
> priced too low.  If it is priced too low, it will be easy for speculators
to
> switch their operations from the current process to the WLS.  Again, it
> appears that members of the transfer task force want to incent the
> speculator business.  That is their prerogative, but I think it is
deceptive
> to make it sound like you're concerned about the average, non-speculator
> consumer.

Of course, if the TF would rather that registrars set the price based on the
service they are offering and the market that they are offering it to...

Chuck's statement is predicated on the existence of a homogeneous service
that all registrars offer. But, when the registry is offering a raw,
unfinished service (like name registrations), registrars can complete the
packaging of these to appeal to many different market segments (Fortune 500
brand protection, individuals that are price-shopping, intermediates with
their own customers etc.). But, the WLS is a finished good that, according
to Chuck, really only should appeal to one small segment of customers.

>
> 3. Consumer interests are likely to be harmed through the reduction in
> competition and possibility of discriminatory behaviour between the
> vertically integrated registrar and registry businesses of Verisign as a
> result of the monopolisation of the key registry function as a result of
the
> introduction of the WLS.
>
> [Gomes, Chuck] I would love to see this documented with some facts.  It
> cannot be and those who are using the argument undoubtedly know this.  But
> it makes for a great emotional attack even if it is totally
unsubstantiated.
> I would suggest at a minimum that the task force ask ICANN whether it has
> any evidence that this is a problem.


Consumer interests would likely be harmed if competition was reduced and
discriminatory behaviour by Verisign was exhibited. This dynamic is not so
much an attack, but a reasonable analysis of one of the dynamics of this
market.



> The bottom line is this: a back-order
> service at the registry level offers consumers a 100% fulfillment if a
name
> is deleted; a back-order service at the registrar level cannot do that.

...add to that "but only for one segment of consumers."

> At
> the same time, the centralized service (WLS) would be offered on a
> first-come, first-served basis, thereby giving all consumers equal
> opportunity.

...add to that "but only equal insofar as the Snapnames contracts have been
grandfathered in giving some people 'more equal, more
first-come-first-served' status."

I simply have to stop at this point as I am sure that very few, if any of
us, can bear to continue to rehash these same bits of
information/misinformation.

I would like to reiterate that Grant's resolution is solid, regardless of
what the proponents of the WLS have indicated to the contrary.

-rwr