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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "[ga]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Peter Girard'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <http://www.SnapNames.com> http://www.SnapNames.com > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Girard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:27 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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. > > >
