ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Proposal for fairer round-robin process in future landrush events - Mk2


Title: Help
I've made two minor changes to my proposal, because I should have been suggesting a minimum of 5000 applications from each registrar, not 1000 as I previously wrote. So, the proposal again:
 
With reference to Landrush queues, submitted by registrars, I believe they should make them equal length.
 
This could be largely achieved by giving each registrar a mandatory queue of (say) 5000 applications.
 
If a registrar did not fill up those application spaces with customers orders, then the remaining unused applications up to five thousand would simply be "Blank Applications".
 
In this way, the majority of registrars would have identical chances in the round-robin process.
 
There would be a problem for the registrars who submitted even larger queues than 5000, but they would still have the same chance as everyone else for their first 5000 applications and only after 5000 would their chances diminish. In other words, ALL registrars would have the same chance for their first 5000 applications - in the phase where the domains most in demand would be taken.
 
Alternatively, you simply increase the threshold from 5000 to a higher number.
 
IN CONTRAST...
 
What we saw in .biz2B were incredibly short queues from certain registrars, designed to "game" the system - against the public interest - for the benefit of the registrar themselves or a favoured client.
 
For example: Signature Domains effectively "queue-jumped" their rivals by applying with a tiny list - they got just 9 registrations for Joshua Blacker, a Signature partner, but what outstanding domains they were. They registered NO other domains for any other customer. They had simply used their registrar privilege to help themselves.
 
Others (like the Lubsens' secondary registrar DomainPro) also played the short list game.
 
After .biz2B, ICANN and Afilias were both warned that the same use of short queues by registrars would occur again in the .info LR2. Afilias refused to do anything about this, and ICANN - approached through Dan Halloran - would not even enter into dialogue over the problem.
 
Sure enough, LR2 saw the same "gaming" of the system. For example, Moshe Fogel operates two registrars. Through ONE of these registrars he submitted a normal list for most of his ordinary customers. Through his second company, he submitted a short list for himself and a few favoured clients. As a result, his applications effectively queue-jumped most of his rivals, and Moshe himself obtained www.domains.info
 
The fact that Moshe Fogel is a Director, close to the heart of Afilias, and was acting CEO for a period, with a close involvement in Afilias policies, makes this easily-abused process all the more disappointing.
 
So yes - I strongly advocate that future landrushes would benefit from equal-length queues if the round-robin process is used again.
 
Why is it left to ordinary members of the public to express these obvious principles? Do you suppose the industry insiders could not think of these solutions themselves?
 
Of course they could. The "anything goes" approach was conscious policy. But it was NOT "the fair distribution of the DNS" that ICANN was mandated to uphold and oversee.
 
Ordinary consumers, as usual, came low down the list of priorities.
 
Richard H


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>