[registrars] on another note

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

does anyone have ACTUAL figures on actual penetration of secondary
market...... how many people have actually opted for buying expiring names
in the current batch delete overflow pool model (without 100% guarantee and
with cumbersome connection pooling)

bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 4:49 AM
> To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: [registrars] VRSN-NSI/Snapback Proposal
>
>
> Registrars,
>
> The Verisign-NSI/Snapback proposal has been on the table going back as far
> as August of last year during the Montevideo meetings when the idea was
> first presented. It was then, and continues to be, lacking in a number of
> key areas that make it an inappropriate solution. A number of
> counterproposals have been tabled over the last few months, but
> they do not
> seem to have been seriously considered by Verisign-NSI or their partners.
> Hopefully, Chuck Gomes' efforts to solicit our input means that project
> planning and "press releasing" will shortly take a back-seat to actively
> listening to valid and informed customer feedback.
>
> The Verisign-NSI/Snapback proposal carries with it a number of negative
> consequences;
>
> - It limits the capability of Registrars to innovate and differentiate the
> services that they offer their clients.
> - It effectively increases the price that Registrars, and therefore
> Registrants, must pay for domain names.
> - It increases the scope of the monopoly that Verisign-NSI
> currently has to
> the detriment of Registrars and consumers.
>
> Perhaps most importantly, *it does not appropriately deal with the problem
> of re-allocating domain names to new registrants
> post-expiration*. Remember,
> that this issue was first raised by Verisign-NSI in response to increased
> load and decreased performance within their registry system. This problem
> was created because of the demand for expired domain names. It is
> still our
> position that Verisign-NSI has a contractual obligation to provide a basic
> level of service under their existing contracts that they are failing to
> uphold. Unless new consensus policy is created that provides them with a
> contractrual framework by which they can change the service offering that
> registrars and registrants receive, then they must continue to satisfy the
> over-riding obligations of their contracts with us and ICANN. The
> Verisign-NSI proposal, however, is essentially a mechanism by which they
> propose to raise the price of a re-registration to the point where demand
> inversely decreases to the point where they can effectively deal with the
> load on a technical basis. A reactionary implementation of this
> nature will
> solely benefit Snapnames and Verisign-NSI leaving the most
> important people
> out of the picture - their customers - the registrars and the domain name
> consuming public, our registrants.
>
> There have been a number of compelling statements made over the last few
> days concerning this issue. One of the most commonly held views, which we
> share, is that this service is priced to high. Suppose for a moment that
> this service is an appropriate proposal to implement (which it clearly is
> not). The wholesale price for a subscription (essentially an option to
> purchase a domain name) is almost 7 times higher than the wholesale price
> for the domain name in question. This is clearly out of balance by any
> measure. Unless the cost of providing the service can be clearly
> demonstrated to the DNSO to justify the $40 price point, then it
> should not
> be a price point that we can easily accept. I note that because this is a
> service extending from a monopoly, it need be cost-justified.
> Justifying it
> on a "price the market will bear" basis is irrelevant except with
> respect to
> whether the service should be provided at all.
>
> As to public market disclosure, this forum is public and if the
> Verisign-NSI
> lawyers felt the relevant costs were material disclosure (although in my
> layman's mind I cannot imagine why projected costs for an as yet not
> approved service would be material) they could easily file an 8K
> and comply.
> I note the proposal itself, which would be significantly more material to
> investors than the specific costs of provisioning, was not
> accompanied by an
> 8K. This is a red herring IMHO.
>
> But back to reality. The real question that the Constituency must consider
> is not whether the price point makes sense, but rather, whether or not the
> general construct that Verisign-NSI has put forth makes sense for
> those most
> effected by it - Registrars and Registrants.
>
> From our perspective, and those of our customers, while this proposal has
> some merit (other than the ridiculous price) it only goes part-way to
> addressing the real problem. We would like to see some serious discussion
> around a variable price subscription model operated by a third party that
> awards the eventual re-registration to the highest bidder.
>
> This type of model has a number of attributes that commend it.
>
> First, it benefits existing and potential future registrants,
> registrars and
> registry. As it is unclear at a policy level who has the "right" to deal
> with an offering of the nature that Verisign-NSI proposes, it is only fair
> that all relevant parties benefit from the eventual solution. This is both
> equitable and politically pragmatic. It is worth noting that political
> pragmatism hopefully leads to all of us increasing revenue sooner.
>
> Second, names will end up in the hands of those that most desire
> them. Those
> that want the name the most are far more likely to put it into active use
> rather than allowing it to sit on the shelf collecting dust. Names in use
> benefit registrars through the form of renewal and value-added service
> revenue. And while it did not form a part of the earlier principles that
> registrars adopted concerning this matter, it does constitute a market
> efficiency that should be made a policy goal.
>
> I note that in a mature namespace such as .com/.net, there is no issue of
> this policy violating egalitarian ideals. It is the case
> presently that all
> the most valuable names are already in the hands of deep pockets or only
> available to same. It is not the thousand or so most valuable
> names that are
> relevant here, but the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, that are
> sitting on a shelf, unused.
>
> Lastly, a proposal of this type would ensure a continued competitive
> landscape within the domain registration space without unduly extending
> Verisign-NSI's existing monopoly.
>
> I would welcome any type of counter-proposal that directly contemplates a
> variable-price re-registration model operated by a third-party while
> upholding the principles earlier adopted by Registrars.
>
> It is my sincere hope that the Registrar Constituency and the
> larger DNSO do
> not further consider the Verisign-NSI/Snapnames proposal as one worthy of
> implementation and instead turn our attentions to alternative models that
> more appropriately benefit a wider range of stakeholders, address the core
> problems that Verisign-NSI point to as the drivers behind this issue and
> most importantly, sow the seeds for a more vibrant (and thus more
> profitable) namespace down the road.
>
> As always, please feel free to drop me a line if I can clarify or further
> expand on these thoughts.
>
> -rwr
>
>
>