>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Judith Oppenheimer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:50:46 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Sep 27 09:50:34 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net
>[204.127.131.36])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9663F06A
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from icbtollfree.com ([12.79.14.71])
> by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134)
> with ESMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Mon, 27 Sep 1999 02:35:59 +0000
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:43:21 -0400
>From: Judith Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [bwg-n-friends] Competition, and New gTLDs
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Mike Roberts wrote:
>
>>Judith - you are not correct in several places here -n either with respect to what
>the accreditation agreements say, nor with >regard to their intent.
>
>>If you wish to gather more info, please consult by email with Louis Touton who is
>staff IP lawyer for ICANN and knows this
>>terrain well.
>
>>- Mike
>
>Mike,
>
>With all due respect to Mr. Touton, I can read the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
>Resolution Policy draft dated 9/21/99 for myself ... under #3 it says, "We may also
>cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration in
>accordance with the terms of your Registration Agreement or other legal requirements."
>
>This is repeated in paragraph 7: "Maintaining the Status Quo. We will not cancel,
>transfer, activate, deactivate, or otherwise change the status of any domain name
>registration under this Policy except as provided in Paragraph 3 above."
>
>The ICANN REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT referred to in the Uniform Domain Name
>Dispute Resolution Policy (see http://www.icann.org/ra-agreement-051299.html), says,
>para. I. Business Dealings, Including with SLD Holders., 7. i., "The SLD holder shall
>agree that its registration of the SLD name shall be subject to suspension,
>cancellation, or transfer by any ICANN procedure, or by any registrar or registry
>administrator procedure approved by
>an ICANN-adopted policy, (1) to correct mistakes by Registrar or the registry
>administrator in registering the name or (2) for the resolution of disputes
>concerning the SLD name."
>
>This registrar accreditation requirement has resulted in such registrar/registrant
>contract clauses as:
>
>"You further acknowledge and agree that your registration of a domain name is subject
>to suspension, cancellation or transfer by any ICANN procedure." - Register.com, and
>"You agree that we may, in our sole discretion, delete or transfer your domain name
>at any time." - NameSecure.com.
>
>The Network Solutions contract language which caused so much user dissatisfaction and
>call for competition, reads:
>
>"7. Revocation. The registrant agrees that Network Solutions shall have the right in
>its sole discretion to revoke, suspend, transfer or otherwise modify a domain name
>registration upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice OR at such time as
>Network Solutions receives a properly authenticated order from a court of competent
>jurisdiction, or arbitration award, requiring the revocation, suspension, transfer or
>modification of the domain
>name registration." (see http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/dispute-policy.html)
>
>I have no crystal ball and do not care to speculate here as to ICANN's intent.
>
>The result of ICANN's policy, however, is obvious: new registrars who's contracts do
>not compete with Network Solutions', nor offer users viable alternatives to Network
>Solutions.
>
>Judith
>
>
>Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
>
>> >Competition among registries would allow registrants
>> >to choose among TLDs rather than face a single option.
>>
>> The premium brand TLD, as with toll free codes, is determined by the marketplace:
>currently .com holds sway, as evidenced by the behavior of end users who prefer it,
>and service providers that cater to it (example: Netscape browser's default to .com).
>>
>> That said, when 800 became portable in 1993, new toll free codes weren't needed to
>create a competitive base for MCI, Sprint etc. to make a dent in AT&T's toll free
>marketshare - it was incumbent on them and other carriers, instead, to convince 800
>users to move their 800 numbers and service to them ... obviously it worked ...
>>
>> B. That said, "new TLD's" doesn't fostered competition per se ...
>>
>> Rather, registrars need to be able to compete, unfettered, in TLD's, price, product
>and service bundling, and contract terms.
>>
>> Regarding the latter, the .to (see
>http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990923/ca_tonic_d_1.html) company is offering a 100-year
>contract in order to distinguish itself in the marketplace, particularly in response
>to concerns about the suddenly tenuous hold domain name holders have on their domain
>names since first NSI, and then ICANN, adopted their anti-user "Your domain name can
>be canceled, deleted or transfered at any time at our discretion" policies.
>>
>> So .to is positioning itself as the 'user friendly registrar' by offering domain
>name security to the end user. Will that drive more people from .com to .to? I
>don't know, but the registrar's option to try, is competition at work.
>>
>> Unfortunately, dot com registrars don't have that option - they are prohibited by
>ICANN from competing in this manner.
>>
>> Strange, since the goal is to foster competition, and NSI's "Your domain name can
>be canceled, deleted or transfered at any time at our discretion" policy is the
>primary source of user discontent with NSI.
>>
>> Allowing new registrars to offer a more user-friendly policy, would foster
>immediate (and very welcome) competition with NSI.
>>
>> But ICANN prohibits it.
>>
>> This is bad for competition. Bad for registrars. Very bad for all businesses,
>large and small, trademarked and not.
>>
>> And it serves no public good.
>>
>> Judith Oppenheimer
>>
>> --
>> Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210
>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com
>> Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com
>> Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html
>> President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com
>
>--
>Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com
>Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com
>Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html
>President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 #
>Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support,
>Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues.
>
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Sometimes you have to have patience with things that annoy you."
-Xena, "Xena: Warrior Princess"
