[registrars] Fw: [ga] GA summary 2002-03

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

GA Summary - Week 3 (let me know if you want me to stop forwarding these - I
find them highly informative, but others may not ;)

Thanks,

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:19 PM
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-03


> This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's discussions during
> the third week of 2002.  List archives are available online at
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.
>
>
> Votes
>
> There were no ongoing votes.
>
>
>
>   NC teleconference
>
> A names council teleconference was held on January 17; an MP3
> recording is available at
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020117.NCteleconf.mp3>.
>
> During that teleconference, Thomas Roessler and Alexander Svensson
> were confirmed as the GA's chair and alternative chair.
>
>
>
> Topics
>
> (i) The structure task force.  David P. Farrar provded another great
> update on the structure task force's work.  Some bullet points:
> Draft 4 of the task force's report is out now.  The new version of
> the report leaves the question open how many members the ALSO must
> have before it may elect for board members (suggested numbers range
>  from 1,000 to 30,000).  The gTLDs, the non-commercials, and the
> intellectual property communities have published positions.  In the
> thread following his excellent initial summary, David reports that
> there is no consensus in the task force on the number of at large
> directors the board should have.  Bret Fausett commented that he
> "was under the impression that the task force's work was to center
> on possible restructuring of the DNSO", to which David replied that
> he "always saw the review taskforce more looking at DNSO
> restructuring and structure at wider ICANN structure".  Also,
> according to DPF, "most of the focus has been on how having an ALSO
> would affect the DNSO as the DNSO at present is meant to be the sole
> policy advisory body to the Board on domain name issues".
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00585.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00589.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00592.html>
>
> In the same thread, Patrick Greenwell strongly argued against any
> quorums in the context of votes of members.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00594.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00597.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00598.html>.
>
> (Yes, I've linked almost the entire thread, but most of it is really
> worth reading.)
>
>
> (ii) WLS and deleted domains.  This (almost) was another week's
> dominant topic, with a short break in the beginning of the week.
>
> Please note that there was extensive discussion on this.  I'm giving
> a necessarily incomplete excerpt from what has been said.  I'm
> pretty certain that many among you will point out something they
> believe to be important that I've dropped.  If you are really
> interested in this discussion's details, I'd strongly suggest you
> have a look at the threaded archive, and just use the postings I'm
> pointing to as starting points.
>
>
> Probably, I should first mention Patrick Corliss' follow-up to the
> last summary, in which he asserts that "most of this discussion was
> led by OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers". To
> this, George Kirikos replied that while he's an OpenSRS reseller, he
> hopes "that the arguments I made stand on their own, regardless of
> some 'label' folks want to place on my forehead".
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00499.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00501.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00516.html>.
>
>
> Rick Wesson, speaking on behalf of his employer, posted "Alice's
> Registry Response to VGRS Registrar Wait List Proposal".  In this
> message, Rick briefly reviews the developments which lead to the WLS
> proposal, the tragedy of the commons, and Speculation, "A
> Non-Constant Sume Game".  He then analyzes the proposal,
> specifically elaborating on the price, on transparency, and
> monopolies.  He then proposes four "required" changes: "Set the
> wholesale price of a WLS subscription to $4.50".  "Require the
> registry to display the registrar that places a WLS subscription on
> a domain in the registry whois". Enable registrants to opt out of
> WLS.  Fix the overflow pool problem by enforcing contracts.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00492.html>
>
>
>
> However, the WLS discussion was really brought back to life by Ron
> Wiener of SnapNames, who posted a file named "Greatest Good vs.
> Benefits of the Few.pdf".  In this document, Wiener produces some
> numbers on his customer base, some of them presented in a pie-chart
> which was erroneously (as he later corrected) labeled "as of January
> 2000".  While you are looking at the numbers and (in particular) the
> pie chart, I'd strongly suggest that you do the maths in your head
> and always use some estimate of revenue per client group as the
> basis for any comparisons you do (or, at least, do that kind of
> comparison in addition).
>
> The bottom line of the paper seems to be that "unlike some
> commentators, who concede without embarrassment that they cater
> primarily to speculators, SnapNames' focus has always been the
> mainstream customer: the 'little guy.' Because a number of postings
> have criticized SnapNames and WLS as either catering to, or unfairly
> benefiting professional speculators, we feel compelled to
> demonstrate [...] that precisely the reverse is true".  In line with
> this, the headline of that particular paragraph claims that "WLS
> Offers the Greatest Good to Greatest Number - Primarily Mainstream
> Users".  In the next part, Wiener tries to back these claims with
> the numbers and pie chart mentions above, and also elaborates how
> retail pricing and the structure of the customer base are related.
>
> The paper also criticizes, under the headline "What's Wrong with
> the Consensus Process Today?", the registrars' constituency's
> January 9 teleconference.  Wiener urges "the broader community not
> to let these special interests [those represented in the registrars'
> constituency - ed.] hijack the decision-making process to the
> detriment of the other registrars, and the mainstream consumer". In
> the last part of the document, Wiener covers some more specific
> arguments, such as "defensive WLS subscriptions", "WLS will not
> solve the system load problems", "The WLS will be gamed by
> speculators", and "Differentiation between registrars will
> decrease".
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00511.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00573.html>.
>
>
> In a follow-up to Ron's message, Ross Wm. Rader points out that the
> teleconference mentioned "was a constituency conference call, not an
> accredited registrar conference call". "The DNSO process only
> accounts for those that have self-selected to participate in the
> process," he continues.  He then goes on to address various claims
> made in Wiener's message, including the number of registrars to
> oppose the WLS during said conference call. Finally, Ross points out
> that he is "deeply disappointed with this obvious attempt to
> distract the participants in this discussion [...]."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00503.html>
>
> Ron Wiener replied to this message, stressing the accuracy of his
> facts concerning registrars' participation in the conference call.
> According to him, the number of (constituency) members represented
> in the conference call "is of no relevance whatsoever".  He then
> also disputes what "opposition" to the proposal actually means,
> since only a few registrars were opposed to the proposal
> "unconditionally", while others would be interested in offereing WLS
> if it was modified.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00512.html>
>
> Rick Wesson's comment on this message was that "over 90% of all
> domains registered by registrars were represented.  Another way to
> look at this is that over 90% of the RRP transations generated by
> registrars were in attendance on the call." He then asked Ron and
> Ross to "get back to dealing with substantive arguments".
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00521.html>
>
> Donny Simonton pointed out that he "was the one registrar who said
> 'when Verisign goes live with the WLS, we would offer it.'" After
> discussing the impact the WLS could (in his opinion) have on
> SnapNames, and quoting a speculator according to whom a high price
> for WLS would be good for speculators, Donny came back to the
> conference call: "Trust me nobody on the conference call had
> anything good to say about the WLS sysem except for myself.  [...] I
> like the concept of the WLS, but not the current implementation!"
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00556.html>
>
> To this, Ron replied that "if the WLS does not get through this
> process, please do not worry about the health of SnapNames".  Also,
> according to him, "everyone seems to underestimate the complexity of
> building a system like this".  Concerning economic theories on what
> kind of price would be preferable for what kind of customer, Wiener
> responds that the only way to actually check these would be to try
> things on the market, and that his firm can only offer their own
> experiences and historical data.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00520.html>
>
>
> Another set of comments on the WLS proposal was posted by Jim Archer
> to the registrars list on behalf of Registration Technologies; a
> link to this was posted by George Kirikos.  He points out that this
> is one of the previously silent registrars talking.  According to
> George "they made one of the best posts I've seen *against* the
> WLS".  Points of criticism include (from the Executive Summary):
> "Verisign's stated desire to enter the secondary domain marketplace
> [...] in which they currently have no presence [...] with a stated
> objective to eliminate existing participants in that margket
> segment."; "We question why Verisign is permitted to control this
> comment process."; material received was incomplete (a service
> agreement to which registrars would be subject was missing);
> "additionally, the time frame for preparing comments was very
> short".  The detailed comments are then organized into "ethical
> issues", "potential legal issues" (divided into "monopoly and
> antitrust", "unlicensed commodity trading" [does trading "domain
> futures" require a license?], and "contract terms"), "practical
> issues", and "practical and administrative issues".
>
> It's a five-page PDF, read it yourself for details.
>
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00575.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01852.html>.
>
>
>
> Eric Schneider of unames.com posted a "recommendation" under the
> subject "WLS - Better Margins for Registrars".  The purpose of his
> response is, he says, "to propose a pricing model to demonstrate how
> the above requirement can be met".  According to Eric, "it is not
> only the obligation, duty, and responsibility but also the time for
> a registry to come full circle and provide reusability services."
> He then suggests a different pricing model for the WLS, which I'll
> leave for the list archive to explain.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00706.html>
>
>
>
> Finally, there was quite a bit of discussion on forming a working
> group to create input on the WLS proposal.  My suggestion on this is
> that the GA itself should go into "working group mode", with some
> participants in the discussion operating as a drafting committee.
>
> Some helpful input was already provided by Ross Rader, who posted a
> list prepared by the registrars in Montevideo last year, containing
> "basic principles that should be fulfilled by any proposal put
> forward".  Similar input from other constituencies would be most
> welcome!
>
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00624.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00630.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00635.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00702.html>.
>
>
>
> (iii) Reseller representation in the DNSO process.  The fact that
> Eric Schneider is posting from the domain of a reseller of a
> registrar triggered a brief discussion on representing resellers in
> the DNSO process.  According to William Walsh, "it is time the
> non-registrar regtistration service providers have some say and
> input in the process." Ross Rader agrees that "there really is no
> appropriate home for the Intermediate Supplier Stakeholders." He
> suggests that it may be "worthwhile that someone investigate whether
> or not the interests of the ISS's and tose of the [ISP constituency]
> are compatible," or whether the ISPC could "accommodate an extended
> membership consisting of firms that don't necessarily qualify under
> their current bylaws."  He then gives a link to some of criteria for
> a new constituency.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00712.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00732.html>.
>
> Good night,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>