[registrars] Deleted names auction proposal

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Ken is right. (Apologize for the cross post here.)

And until a solution is found, deleted names (outside
of the 5 and 45 day windows) will not be available
for ANYONE to register. And the overwhelming amount of
names not available will not be desirable ones, but names that may
only be in demand by 1 party. 

The solution is to let the market determine
the value of a given domain name.  Unfortunately,
the "application" process (similar to .biz) can't
be used, although at one time even I had made that
suggestion.

And developing systems or procedures to allow more connections,
(or fairer fights) is simply never going to be practical
and fair to consumers.

The solution that I propose benefits
everyone. Consumers, Verisign, ICANN.
Additionally, it is a new business opportunity
for Registrars.

As has been mentioned, why not an auction where Registrars take
bids for desirable names from customers?

1) The REGISTRY gets a fee per name for developing and
implementing the systems to allow registrars
to submit bids on behalf of customers.

2) The REGISTRARS get a fee for accepting the
bids from potential customers. 

3) The registrar who is RELEASING (has deleted
or about to delete) the name
gets a % of the name sale to insure that
it is in their best interest to release the
name, and not sell it or retain it themselves.
This would take care of names that are within
the 5 and 45 day windows that don't even go
on registry hold (by providing an incentive
to the registrars of those names to have them
handled in the same way). It would also take care
of registrars monitoring expiration dates of those
names trying to grab them by engineering abusive systems.

3a) The other % gets split among ICANN and
other ICANN accredited registrars according
to some formula that would have to be developed.

4) Bids can be submitted for any name, even
if it is not expired. That way customers don't
have to constantly monitor the process. The bids
will remain private, only being known by the
registrar who collects the bid and the registry.
We get many cases of people who would like
names that haven't even expired yet, and I'm sure
they would pay a nominal fee to be able to bid
for  the name if it ever was available.

IANAL, but with the auction approach (unlike the "application" process) 
it's legal since the winner is not picked randomly.

And, it is fair for consumers, since one
small fee, paid to the registrar of your choice,
covers your bid for a given name. 
With applications, you have to submit multiple
applications with no guarantee even if you submit
the most applications, only a better chance.
And you lose all the application money.
(And as we know the legality
of that system is currently being questioned.)

One final thought. People wanting to register
expired names will complain about the fact that they
have to bid on expiring names. But let's face
it. They don't stand a chance of getting the
desirable names right now, unless they buy
them from the person who knows how to work 
the current system.

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com


Ken Stubbs wrote:
> 
> fellow registrars...
> 
> i am personally very troubled by the data released by the Verisign Registry
> in support or the recent action taken as indicated in the url listed below.
> i bothers me to think that that even a "possibility" exists that a limited #
> of parties could create a technical "scenerio"   where "registrar-
> competitiors" could be denied access to the ability to conduct normal
> business.
> 
> i would strongly suggest that the registrars form a "working group" led by
> our new CTO rick wesson to investigate the circumstances surrounding these
> actions described in the letter ... to wit:
> 
> " 1.More than 400 million check commands within a six-hour window to
> register a few hundred desirable names each morning
>  2. Single registrars executing as many as 1500 attempts per second
> 3. The same registrar sending a check command for the same name in excess of
> 1000 times per minute over extended periods of time
> 4. Registrars hoarding connections (grabbing all connections up to their
> limit) and, with the exception of the describe command, executing
> single-digit numbers of transactions until they are prepared to execute
> pre-staged batch jobs that will invade the system at rates noted in excess
> of 100,000 per minute
> 5. Registrars executing in excess of 100,000 check commands for each name
> successfully registered, compared to a typical ratio of well under 1,000
> check commands for each name successfully registered
> 6. Registrars who typically use less than 10 connections throughout the day,
> then increase that connection count to a triple-digit number
> 7. Registrars who clearly execute an automated check process (i.e., checks
> for the same names at rates in excess of 1000 per minute)
> 8. Registrars whose typical usage patterns suggest the need for a
> single-digit number of connections, and who then increase their connection
> count by up to 200 times without a corresponding increase in productive
> activity (i.e., a registrar who hoards connections in an apparent attempt to
> deny others)
> 
> this 'working group" needs to have a balance of both large, medium, & small
> registrars ( i would suggest 2 from each category) and should be tasked with
> the responsibility of anlyzing the problem, and recommending potential
> technical  solutions, ( or other actions as the group  would deem
> appropriate) to the balance of the registrar constituancy for proposed
> action ( which could be taken at the montevideo meeting).
> 
> we need to get started on this NOW...
> 
> we registrars,  as a group, need to be much more pro-active in developing
> solutions to problems created within our own group rather than sitting back
> and waiting for others to impose rules, procedures, etc on us.
> 
> i would hope that this proposal would not just get "discussed to death" but
> rather implemented ASAP but that is a decision which you as a group need to
> support.
> 
> your thoughts please ?
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ken stubbs
> 
> > To the Names Council:
> >
> > ICANN has posted a follow-up to its 16 July advisory concerning
> > equitable allocation among registrars of .com/.net/.org Shared
> > Registration Services.  The follow-up appears at
> > <http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm>.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Louis Touton
> >

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------