Re: [registrars] Answers to Various Questions

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Hi Michael...

Comments below.

--On Wednesday, July 17, 2002 1:14 PM -0400 "Michael D. Palage" 
<michael@palage.com> wrote:

> There is no where in ICANN by-laws in which consensus is defined by a
> magical number. As former Chair of Working Group B there was much debate
> on this issue during the formative months of the DNSO following Berlin.
> After consulting various sources, the number 70% was used for defining
> consensus. The other place that a numerical value is used is in
> connection with our ICANN accreditation agreement that require 66% of the
> registrar market share to approve ICANN's annual budget.

Based upon this, it would seem that you agree there is no basis whatsoever 
for the 80% figure you used earlier.  So I ask again, where did that 80% 
number you said was needed for consensus come from?


> The question that needs to be answered immediately is how should our three
> Names Council representatives vote on the WLS Task Force recommendation.
> The choices are (1) as a block or (2) representative of the actual vote.

Are we going to have a formal vote to determine this?  I will be happy to 
write up a motion and submit it for a vote.  Based upon the bylaws you 
cited, I believe they should be voteing as a block.

>
> QUESTION 2:
>
> What took place in Bucharest regarding a straw poll.

These "straw polls" have to stop!  They are meaningless expressions of what 
the people in the room might just happen to think at the moment.  You will 
probably recall that at the straw poll taken at the Virginia meeting, the 
opposition to WLS was strong, but not nearly as strong as in the formal 
vote.  There is a good reason for this.  Registrars that have resources to 
expend on attending each and every meeting are the larger ones who tend to 
be pro-WLS.  Further, these "straw polls" are taken on the spur of the 
moment, with no notice to the membership, by an informal show of hands.

The DNSO took a formal vote on WLS.  The adopted resolution was presented 
to the entire membership, time was allowed for debate, and a vote was 
taken.  Unless there was a specific vote to rescind this resolution, it 
still stands as the official position of the DNSO.

Was any specific action taken that came right out and said it was designed 
to supercede or retract the previously adopted resolution?



> Why all the concern about anti-trust issues, is this just being used to
> scare people into letting the WLS get approved.

A lot of the concern about this being a scare tactic arises from the 
one-sided nature of the anti-trust discussion. There has been a great deal 
of discussion about registrars discussing the prices they charge their 
customers constituting an anti-trust violation.  There has been very little 
discussion of whether or not registrars discussing prices we are charged by 
the monopoly provider constitute price fixing and/or are otherwise 
appropriate.  These are two very different things, yet they are 
consistently lumped together.

Further, there has been no discussion on the anti-trust aspects of an 
existing monopoly company entering an existing market segment with a 
service that would clearly destroy it.  We keep hearing how we can be 
locked up, but what we don't hear about are the serious and legitimate 
anti-trust issues WLS raises.


> to the stated 7% level. The Department of Justice prosecuted several
> realtors criminally for an agreement to fix prices, which resulted in
> convictions. The convictions were upheld on appeal. The fact that our
> actions could potential result in jail time is something that we NEED to

> I will try to get a copy of this case to circulate to the list.

This is a good example of why people feel this is a scare tactic.  I 
understand that this is a valid point, however, it is also at least 
partially off topic.  Can you find any cases or examples where company 
officers were prosecuted for discussion the prices they are charged by a 
monopoly provider?  If we all sat around discussing the prices charged by 
the water company, could we be jailed?  What if three friendly cog vendors 
got together and one said to the other two "hey, this new supplier is 10% 
cheaper than that other one, maybe we can get them to come down?"  In our 
case, if a registrar started a petition drive to try to get ICANN and the 
DoC to make Verisign lower their prices, can we be jailed for that? Of 
course not.

I'll bet without too much trouble you could find cases where a company who 
controlled a large part of the market segment and sought to expand into 
another market segment was prosecuted.  Heck, you can even read the history 
of the Sherman Act.  Standard Oil anyone?

And, just for a little gravy, I'll bet there are cases where a big, 
non-monopoly supplier sought to control and prevent any secondary market 
for their wares and got into trouble for this.  This begs the question, can 
a Registry seek to prevent a secondary market for names?  Would WLS do 
this?  Would NeuLevel's policy on selling BIZ names do this?



*****************************
Jim Archer, CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
voice: 401-949-4768
fax: 401-949-5814
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
http://www.RegistrationTek.com