RE: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

Michael, 
see below

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:53 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering
> 
> 
> Thanks Ross,
> 
> Although I think it is a great initiative, the true test will 
> be having it
> come to fruition. Because of the WLS discussion I wanted to 
> wait, however,
> my conversations in my conversations with the registries about their
> potential sponsorship of our meeting next month made me 
> believe that this is
> an issue that needs to be addressed sooner as opposed to later.
> 
> Almost every registry operator discussed how they wanted to 
> discuss with
> registrars new service offerings that would be launching 
> shortly. This made
> me think that if these discussions go the same course as the 
> WLS we have
> zero chance of completing our objectives outlined in the 2002 agenda.
> 
> I have to think about your comments of the WLS being a 
> re-packed service,
> and let me explain why. A number of registrars offer a registrar lock
> feature, some for free (eNom) others at an additional cost. 
> In the NeuLevel
> .BIZ proposal they discussed a registry lock feature that 
> would directly
> compete with the registrar lock service offering. 

I spoke with the .biz people at the LA ICANN meeting about 
their offer of registrar lock, since as you say eNom is one
of the registrars that also offers a similarly sounding
product.  In my opinion, it does not
compete with, at least, eNom's registrar lock function;
it is a different feature that we don't offer.
eNom uses registrar lock so that registrant's names will
not be accidentally or inadvertently transferred.
.biz's lock does not prevent us from offering eNom's "registar lock"
function because there is a mechanism built-in to the EPP
whereby registrants need a roid to transfer names.
I would have a problem if Verisign or Nuelevel started charging
for a "prohibit name from transferring" registrar lock.

I brought up at the Verisign registry meeting that I 
have a *slight* problem with registries competing with registrars
by offering services that we already offer such as DNS
email forwarding, etc that Verisign announced at that meeting.  
BUT I have a *big* problem when they
offer a monopoly product (one that we cannot possibly offer)
that directly replaces one that we (and they) are already offering,
and already offering at a much lower price.



> Although I 
> do not believe
> that this service is currently operational, a price point is 
> provided for in
> their existing contract, see Appendix G -
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appg-11
> may01.htm. 

We all agreed, via a huge ICANN process that they could offer this product
at
that price.  Just like we all agreed via ICANN that .name
could offer email forwarding at the price they are offering
it at, even though many registrars were
offering email forwarding, and that this particular email product could
only be offered by .name registry.   
Those registries did set the price and service unilaterally.

> So what happens if VeriSign was to decide to offer a registry 
> lock feature in
> .com, .org and .net would this be classified as a re-packed service?

We'd analyze it on a case-by-case basis
like we are doing with WLS.
In this case, if they offered the same service as nuelevel's,
I'd say it was not re-packed, but only if the other stuff
remained the same or it did not pre-empt the operation of the
current service, ie, they continued
to offer the current registrar lock feature and the
new feature does not interfear with its operation.  If they
replaced the current one, then I'd say it was re-packaed.

In the WLS case Verisign/SnapNames is attempting to offer
this "new" (not really, IMO), yet worse service, which *pre-empts* 
a service, i.e. re-registering deleted names, 
that is already factored in to their ICANN/DOC 
agreements. 


> 
> Further issues that I would need to consider in my analysis are the
> following, do we as registrars have an exclusive lock on all services
> associated with a sponsored domain name and that customer. 
> For example,
> could a registrant choose TUCOWS to register a .BIZ domain 
> name, but choose
> VeriSign registrar to offer a registry lock service in 
> connection with a
> digital certificate it obtains. Gets interesting doesn't it :-)
> 
> The objective of the paper/flowchart is to illicit comments from
> registration authorities to work towards a mutually 
> acceptable goal. Based
> upon my current work load, I hope to have the flow chart 
> available prior to
> the February meeting so I doubt it would have any benefit 
> toward the current
> WLS discussion. Moreover, the flow chart is designed to start with the
> proposal and then work through a series of steps, I do not 
> think plugging
> the WLS into it with all its baggage would work.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:10 PM
> > To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Registry and New Service Offering
> >
> >
> > This is a great initiative Mike. Declaring standardized processes
> > will most
> > certainly allow registrars and registries to streamline their
> > relationships
> > and operate in closer harmony. One problem though as it 
> relates to this
> > particular comment.
> >
> > > In connection with this effort, I have begun drafting a 
> flow chart that
> > > would allow all interested parties to provide input into the
> > process while
> > > protecting the business interests of registration 
> authorities, both
> > > registrars and registries. I will be circulating a draft
> > shortly. But the
> > > part of this flow chart that I would like to share with 
> the constituency
> > now
> > > in connection with the WLS discussion is the following. There are
> > generally
> > > three objections to any new registry service offering: 
> policy, price and
> > > technology. What the draft committee should consider is how to
> > distill the
> > > comments into the following areas. Once you have consolidate the
> > individual
> > > and collective concerns you then allow for a more 
> informed discussion.
> >
> > The WLS is not a new service entirely. It is a re-package 
> of an existing
> > service. As a result, it clearly falls within the scope of the
> > ICANN/Registry Agreement. Changing these agreements requires the
> > development
> > of consensus policy - which is not a process that we can
> > arbitrarily change
> > or ignore.
> >
> > Not having seen the document yet, my question would 
> necessarily be - does
> > the document take this into account or is it strictly 
> intended to deal
> > solely with the development and deployment of new services? I
> > suspect it is
> > the latter from your email, but I just want to be clear.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
>