[registrars] FW: WLS comments....

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

John has requested that I forward this response to Bruce Tonkin's
earlier position statement against the WLS. John makes some very clear
and logical statements that commend a thorough reading by constituency
members.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Vogel [mailto:jvogel@moranks.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 3:19 PM
To: Ross Wm. Rader
Subject: WLS comments....


Ross,

I have sent the following email to comments-deletes@dnso.org in response
to Bruce Tonkin's "Comments on Final Report of the Transfer Task Force
on the WLS proposal"

I see where his email has also been posted to other lists where I do not
have posting privileges. Would it be possible to get my response also
posted on such lists where it is appropriate?

please feel free to forward this email as you wish.
Thanks.
John Vogel
jvogel@moranks.net

------ original email ------
In response to Bruce Tonkin....

As a domain name registrant, admittedly on a fairly small scale with
less than 30 names registered for personal use, I would like to comment
on your (Bruce Tonkin's) remarks concerning the "Final Report"
referenced in the email partially reproduced below.
  In the interest of full disclosure, I will also state that I am a
reseller of domain names through Tucows/OpenSRS, but have primarily used
that relationship for my own registrations, along with several names for
valued clients,  with the total registrations to date through my OpenSRS
account being less than 50.

While I feel that my status qualifies me as an "end user", I also
believe that it also qualifies me as one with above average knowledge
(for end users) of the workings of the name registration system.  Since
Bruce's comments seem to indicate that he is concerned with the effects
of any proposed change such as the WLS on the end user, referred to by
him as "eventual consumer", and yet he disagrees with the recommendation
that ICANN deny the WLS, which I see as being extremely detrimental to
consumers such as my clients and myself, I felt the need to respond.

 Please read through quoted text below for my comments.

John Vogel
"Eventual consumer"


BT>-----Original Message-----
BT>From: Bruce Tonkin
BT>Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:05 PM
BT>To: 'comments-deletes@dnso.org'
BT>Subject: Comments on Final Report of the Transfer Task Force on the 
BT>WLS proposal


BT>Hello,

BT>Thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the Final report of the 
BT>Transfer Task Force.

BT>My comments are on behalf of Melbourne IT, and do not represent the 
BT>views
of
BT>the registrar constituency.

BT>Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS =================================

BT>I disagree with this recommendation.
BT>I believe that ICANN needs to be very careful not to stifle 
BT>innovation at the registry level.  Any new service will have an 
BT>affect on the market.

I agree that ICANN needs to be very careful not to stifle innovation at
the registry level, but. as I think you would agree, I also think that
ICANN _should_ stifle any innovation at the registry level which is
harmful to "the eventual consumer". For this reason, I think
Recommendation 1. above is a good recommendation.

BT>I agree with the following comments in the Task Force's powerpoint
BT>presentation:
BT>"Competition should always be viewed as to the effect on the eventual

BT>consumer - this is the framework of consideration the TF has taken".

Your agreement with this point is why I don't understand your
disagreement with recommendation 1.

BT>"While individual registrars are acknowledged to have existing vested

BT>interests in the status quo - maintaining today's competition is NOT
about
BT>protecting particular businesses, rather it is retaining an open 
BT>market".

In this case, (WLS) we are not so much talking about protecting a
particular business, but rather a whole "class" of businesses currently
providing services in the secondary domain market. The choice is between
a number of businesses currently providing a service directly to the
eventual consumer, or . one business providing that service as a
monopoly to certified resellers, who must then develop new business
strategies to market the service now being provided by the monopoly (at
higher cost) to the eventual consumer. In any case, (at least for domain
names most in demand) the "service" now available to end users (to
compete for a dropped name at the time of deletion) will no longer be
directly available to those end users.

BT>I disagree with the conclusions of the next slide.

BT>The present market of registrars compete against each other to 
BT>register names using the "add" domain command.  This competition can 
BT>occur at the time when a name is first created (most prominent when a

BT>new registry
comes
BT>into business), and when a name first becomes available again for 
BT>registration (e.g after the name is deleted from the registry).  This

BT>competition is meant to be on the basis of equal access to 
BT>connections to the registry so that each registrar competes against 
BT>each other fairly.

Important point to note here: The competition referred to above occurs
only with names that are available. (Have not yet been registered or
have been deleted. In either case, the name is "available")

BT>Recently there has been a degree of market collusion where some
registrars
BT>team together to combine their connections to the registry to gain an

BT>advantage in registering certain domains over other registrars, and 
BT>there has also been instances where companies have become accredited 
BT>registrars for the sole purpose of trading in the names that they 
BT>register for their own use.

I won't dispute this point, but I fail to see how it points to a need
for the WLS. If this has indeed happened in the current system, I will
likely happen with the WLS system too, sice (as you point out below) the
WLS will have characteristics similar to the current system.

BT>I do not believe that the addition of the WLS service will 
BT>significantly impact the competition in using the "add" command.  
BT>There will continue
to
BT>be a range of business models in the use of this command.

It is difficult to predict this. you may be correct. If the WLS is
perceived to be of so little value that the eventual consumer
(speculator or otherwise) refuses to buy them in quantity, the current
"add" storms may continue. For names of "value" though, I that anybody
who wants one will feel it is necessary to purchase a WLS on it (if
available) to keep their chances alive.

BT>The WLS service in fact will have similar characteristics to the core
domain
BT>name service.
BT>There will be competition to add a WLS entry at the time when a WLS 
BT>is
first
BT>created (we could see a similar effect here to when a new gtld domain
name
BT>registry starts operation), and also when a WLS is removed from a 
BT>name
(this
BT>will be similar to the current competition for deleted names).

Similar except for two things. it will cost  > 400% more . and the
competition will be for a name that may not become available in the
lifetime of the WLS subscription. It currently costs $6 + registrar
mark-up to "grab" a name, and it will cost $24 + registrar mark-up under
the WLS to "maybe grab" a name. The eventual consumer is hurt on both
points.

<BT
A range of
BT>business models (including most of the existing models for the core
domain
BT>name service) will also exist for WLS.  For example, different 
BT>methods to determine the optimum time to place a WLS on a name to 
BT>maximise the
chance
BT>of obtaining the name in a deletion (based on knowledge of whether 
BT>the domain name is likely to be deleted).

Ahh. the consumer is not obligated to purchase the WLS until they "know"
the name will be deleted. but if someone else "knows" before they do and
purchases the WLS, the one who found out second loses. So, if the
consumer wants a particular name, his only option is to purchase the WLS
now before someone else does, even if that means he must purchase it
beofre he "knows" it will actually become available. Again, the consumer
is hurt. Under the current system, he still has a chance. even if he
doesn't commit to the process until he can be reasonably certain the
name will actually be dropped.

BT>I believe that WLS will not damage competition amongst registrars in 
BT>servicing their customers, and it may in fact create more competitive

BT>opportunities in terms of new business models to take the best 
BT>advantage
of
BT>WLS as a registry service.

Competition amongst registrars is not very important when what they are
selling is of less quality and of a higher price than what they were
selling before, simply because a monopoly denied them the opportunity to
market the previous product.

BT>In terms of consumer acceptance of WLS, this will be a matter for the
market
BT>to determine.  I personally think it is an easy service to explain to

BT>consumers.  I think most of the issues surrounding WLS are in fact
related
BT>to the processes for deletions.

I agree that many of the issues that have been raised  to date can be
addressed by fixing the deletion process, but fixing deletions would
have no effect on the harm to consumers in the loss of  a currently
available product.


BT> Consumers do not want their names to be
BT>handed over to the holder of a WLS subscription accidentally.  
BT>Provided a consumer definitely decides not to renew a domain name, 
BT>there should be
no
BT>problem with an approach to take out a first option on the name when 
BT>it becomes available.

I don't think that would be a viable choice for the consumer under the
currently proposed WLS. Maybe if WLS subscriptions were not allowed
until the name actually enters the drop cycle.. But then what's the
point?

BT>My main personal advice, is that I don't think there is a strong 
BT>enough
case
BT>put forward from a regulatory point of view to deny the service.  I 
BT>do
not
BT>see how the consumer will be adversely affected from any changes in
the
BT>competitive marketplace as a result of introducing the WLS.   It will
create
BT>a dangerous precedent that may either limit registry innovation, or
provide
BT>ammunition for organisations that would like to see the end of ICANN.

BT>It could create an example of where ICANN has exceeded its authority,

BT>for no strong gain for the consumer.

I think the consumer is greatly harmed when s/he is denied the
opportunity to wait until there is a reasonable chance that a name will
actually become available before s/he must commit the resources to
obtaining it, instead being forced (if they want the given name) to
commit (more) money with no assurance at all that they will even have a
chance, in the event that the current registrant renews it.

I think we agree on most of your other points. and I have not included a
large part of your original email for that reason.

Thanks for your careful consideration.
John Vogel