Re: [registrars] Deleted names auction proposal

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

dwascher@iaregistry.com wrote:
> 
> Larry,
> The bidding process has some built in problems already. If you go out to
> some of the registrars now that are in this business - the dollars are high.
> Namewinner(dotster) and Signature have bids for large traffic names well
> above $800.00 per. Various others will claim that the domain name price is
> $8.00 but the admin fee is $792.00. 

David, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.
Are you saying you think the prices are to high? Or?

> I know that Dan H. has several
> complaints from people about the way various registrars handle bidding and
> how they selectively give the name to a different bidders after the fact.

I don't even think that is an ICANN situation 
that they should even be dealing with (now). It seems more
like an FTC situation or a situation that a lawyer
for the agreived should be involved in,  at least in the US.

> There are continuous complaints on boards about the after market game going
> to the highest bidder.

Are you saying complaints because people don't think
they should have to pay high prices for good
names? Well how do they think they should be made
available? The current system?
Or, are you saying because of dishonesty in the current process
by some auctions? 

If so, if that happened here it did it would
be easily policed with an appropriate complaint
mechanism. 

Any registrar could take a bid or multiple bids. 
The registry would determine the high bid and
post that publically. If you were to submit a bid for "xyz.com" for
$1,800 to "RegistrarN" and the registry determined that
$1,800 was the high bid they would notify RegistrarN" and
that would be made public. Presumably the person
who had placed that bid would have some receipt from
the Registrar which would prevent the dishonesty at
that level. (Of course enforcing the same with a Registrar's
resellers would take a little more work and fraud is
always possible.)

> 
> One of the concerns that has been looming is that all expired or deleted
> names would be funneled through GreatDomains which is NSI's after market
> place. There are about 9 million names that have not dropped that should be.
> I was told that out of that 9 million about 2 million will be sought after
> because of there value. I have personally found names that expired in '98
> and have yet to be released.

That is true although I doubt the number is that high.
(Not that I know what the exact number is.) But that is a 
separate issue. And don't forget, my proposal gives the
losing registrar a cut of the auction dollars. I know
there will be plenty of complaints that Verisign gets
to keep that money, but for practical matters,it very well may be a deal
that is worth cutting no matter how much it hurts.

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com

> 
> Maybe we should ask some of the expired "players" if they have any
> suggestions.
> 
> David Wascher
> Manager IARegistry
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>
> To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> Cc: <Registrar@registrar.icann.org>; <Registrars@dnso.org>;
> <registrars@verisign-grs.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 1:35 PM
> Subject: [registrars] Deleted names auction proposal
> 
> > 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------

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