[ga] Re: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

["Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>]

I am on discuss and delete and reading ga. Ironically the tamest discussion
is on registrar.

The best thing about the whole debate is that our guys are starting to get
real involved. A very good sign. I think I may put a long one post together
tomorrow as it indeed looks like fun (then again maybe not).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Cc: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>; <discuss-list@opensrs.net>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 10:38 PM
Subject: Fw: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System


> Ron asked me to pass this on to the Registrars list for the benefit of
those
> that aren't subscribed to the ICANN-Delete list. I've taken the liberty of
> posting this additionally to GA and discuss-list - apologies to those that
> receive all four copies.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -rwr
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Wiener" <Ron@Snapnames.com>
> To: "'Peter Girard'" <peter_girard@yahoo.com>;
> <icann-delete@total.confusion.net>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:08 PM
> Subject: RE: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System
>
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > I enjoyed reading your proposal, and have admired the way you continue
to
> > carry the flag for a variable-priced auction mechanism.  If you please,
I
> > have a couple of questions followed by a few general comments:
> >
> > 1. If you are requiring the permission of the former registrant in
> > order for the auction to "close"...
> >
> >
> > a. ...are you not then in effect alerting him or her to the fact that
> > their name may have some value, and encouraging them to renew rather
than
> > allow the name to expire?  This may be a brilliant scheme for goosing up
> > renewal rates, but how does it help registrars and registries gain any
> > upside that they would presumably only enjoy if the name actually
changed
> > hands?
> >
> >
> > b. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the reason you NEED the current
> > registrant's permission is that in order to circumvent the registry, you
> > want to be able to use the XFER command instead of actually deleting the
> > name.  I suspect the IP constituency might have some serious heartburn
> over
> > this as it creates all sorts of liability problems when the creation
date
> of
> > a domain name record is not reset upon a new registrant receiving the
> name.
> > Using the XFER command in this way exposes the new registrant to
potential
> > litigation from the prior registrant who may claim the registrar did a
> lousy
> > job of tracking him down with a renewal notice "because they'd make a
lot
> > more money auctioning off my name than letting me renew it."  The
original
> > transfer date matching his filed invoices could imply that the name is
> still
> > his since apparently it was never deleted.
> >
> >
> > c. It's also not clear to me that registrars Terms & Conditions extend
> > the current registrant's rights to the domain name past the actual
> > expiration date and into the grace period.  If this is the case that the
> > current registrant's rights have already ended then the registrar would
> > essentially be warehousing and speculating with this name during the
grace
> > period.  Perhaps someone from ICANN or VGRS can clarify this for us.
Dan
> or
> > Chuck?
> >
> >
> > 2. It seems to me that there is a distinction between the WLS (as
> > proposed) and the RRS (as proposed), in that the WLS allows registrars
to
> > capture "backup demand" for any name throughout the entire year.  The
RRS
> > only allows the capture of demand during a portion of the 45-day grace
> > period window, which inherently means it would be primarily of interest
> to,
> > and accessible to, speculators, not mainstream consumers.
> >
> > Mainstream customers are unlikely to happen to discover a need for a
> domain
> > name during any particular 45-day period, learn how to search for it
from
> > about 1.5M names that would presumably be up for auction during such
> period,
> > learn how the bidding mechanism works, dig in their pockets for a credit
> > card to pay a $2 fee (smacks a bit too much of $2 .biz lottery fees -
> yikes
> > - bad memories!), and sit around to monitor the whole thing.  Odds are
9:1
> > that the discovered need for a name would happen sometime other than
that
> > 45-day window.  (I'm simplifying this by assuming the average
registration
> > is about one year in term anyway.)  The RRS proposal states that
consumers
> > would have "open, fair access to deleting domain names in an environment
> > free from high-tech gaming and first-mover advantage" but the method
> > described doesn't seem to meet this definition.
> >
> >
> > Consumers are not likely to want to participate in an auction process
> which
> > can easily be gamed, much like eBay auctions often are, with shill bids.
> > Witness the thick file at the FTC and the number of lawsuits that were
> > generated.  In fact, a savvy speculator could whip up a robotic
algorithm
> to
> > outbid others milliseconds before auction close, or to pump fraudulent
> bids
> > into the system using stolen credit card numbers - a problem already
> > plaguing too many registrars and secondary name sites.
> >
> > Consumers are also not likely to wait anywhere from 1 to 344 days to
then
> > have to monitor an auction process, and then be prepared to spend an
> > undefined amount of money to get the name.  I can see speculators being
> > willing to do this all day long - they're good at it - but mainstream
> > consumers?  For them I believe this type of mechanism would be deemed
yet
> > another "game of chance" with $2 betting fees, and could become a
> lightning
> > rod for litigation against registrars, ICANN, VeriSign, et al.
> Speculators
> > may be just fine with the game of change (some seem to even thrive on
it)
> > but mainstream customers would be anything but enamored by the prospect
of
> > it.
> >
> > Further, while I fundamentally agree that variable-pricing makes a lot
of
> > sense in the long run, it's extraordinarily tricky getting it right when
> it
> > comes to domain names, and now doesn't seem the right time to implement
> such
> > an advanced marketplace concept.  Witness the number of different models
> > that have been tried and abandoned by some of the ccTLDs - a perfect one
> is
> > yet to be found.   One concern from an FTC standpoint is that
uninitiated
> > domain name buyers might be goaded into paying unwarranted prices for
> domain
> > names because of the heated action of an auction.  This is where sites
> like
> > NameWinner are actually safer, because everyone there is at least a
> > quasi-professional speculator and knows how to appraise the value of a
> name.
> > If unwitting consumers are successfully drawn into an active bidding
event
> > for domain names, they could potentially be misled into paying
exorbitant
> > prices.  One benefit of the flat pricing of the WLS structure is that it
> > eliminates the possibility of this sort of complex and problematic
> consumer
> > experience.  Again, you might ask the FTC how many such complaints
they've
> > received from eBay customers over this sort of thing.
> >
> > Finally, putting on my Wall Street hat for a moment, the RRS lacks two
> > especially nice financial features of the WLS which is that it provides
no
> > forward visibility on certain revenues (i.e. if 60% of my registrants do
> not
> > renew next year I know that x% of the names in question would
> automatically
> > go to a wait listed customer) and no growth in deferred revenue, a key
> > valuation driver.  For public companies (there are currently six
> > publicly-held registrars) this is particularly important, as it is for
the
> > valuation of any registrar that hopes to be acquired someday.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > Ron Wiener, Chairman and CEO
> > SnapNames.com, Inc.
> > 115 NW First Avenue, Third Floor
> > Portland, OR 97209
> > tel: 503-219-9990 x222
> > cell: 503-502-5016
> > fax: 503-274-9749
> >  <mailto:ronw@SnapNames.com> mailto:ronw@SnapNames.com
> >  <http://www.SnapNames.com> http://www.SnapNames.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Girard [mailto:peter_girard@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:27 AM
> > To: icann-delete@total.confusion.net
> > Subject: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System
> >
> > With the help of several members of the registrar community, we have
> > migrated our dynamically priced delete proposal to a registry-level
> service
> > in which the bulk of the revenue opportunity goes to the registrars.
This
> > system would be cheaper, fairer, more transparent, and better for
Internet
> > growth than earlier proposals. Perhaps most important, it would reward
the
> > sector of this industry (registrars) that faces market risks and creates
> > value.
> > I have attached a Word document. If this is problematic, I will happily
> > provide an alternative format.
> > Peter Girard, Afternic.com
> >
> >   _____
> >
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Send FREE video
> > <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/?http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/>
> emails
> > in Yahoo! <http://rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/tag/?http://mail.yahoo.com/>
Mail.
> >
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html