Re: [bc-gnso] Registry/Registrar Separation
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Registry/Registrar Separation
- From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:57:55 +0000
I agree with Mikey -- there is more nuance here and we certainly don't
want to be making long term structural changes without rigourous
I suggested in the public forum today that, given that ownership
arrangements are part of registry/registrar contracts and that those
conditions are within the purview of the PDP process, that we should
recommend a proper policy development exercise.
If we did it right, we would hear all points of view, have additional
information from experts AND reach a set of recommendations to advise
On 29 Oct 2009, at 02:56, Mike O'Connor wrote:
i think there's more nuance there.
the reason i started registering domain names in 1993 was because i
wanted my own email domain. i tried to get oconnor.com but it was
taken. so i settled for haven.com instead.
many years later, i finally got my name in a domain name --
oconnor.pro. so i'm an example of a guy who hand-registered a name
in a new gTLD that i couldn't get in an existing one.
unfortunately, right after i got that name, i accidentally sold that
first domain (haven.com) for a boatload of money and wound up
retiring from the ".pro" world. life's funny that way...
sure, there's money to be made in premium name auctions and
monitization. but a LOT of people will ALSO be able to get names
that they can't get otherwise. there's room for both, methinks. i
truly don't think the actors in this drama are evil, they're just
approaching the problem from a different point of view. the
conversation that's visible by email during the Seoul meeting
convinces me that we're getting better at seeing those different
points of view and coming to constructive agreements that can meet
the needs of all. we're not great at it yet, but we're getting
better. let's keep working on that.
On Oct 28, 2009, at 9:37 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
(for those of you not here in Seoul)
Below is what I said (not on behalf of BC) today at the Public
Forum, regarding Rr/Ry separation.
I Listened to debate over separation. inconclusive (both sides
passionate and articulate)
But I did learn about motivations for Registrars wanting to run
I learned about innovative methods for monetizing premium names.
What I learned tells me ICANN should reset public expectations
about benefits of new TLDs.
Let’s start being more transparent about the way names will and
won’t be available to the public.
Let’s limit disappointment when TLDs launch.
And let’s make it less likely that the review team on
Competition , Consumer Trust, and Choice will give ICANN a failing
For years, the Rhetoric of expectations has been: we need new TLDs
to give registrants all those “good names that are unavailable in
That’s the rhetoric. What’s the reality?
Reality 1: new gTLD applicants will maximize profits on premium
names, whether by selling them at diff prices, or by having an
affiliate park the domain with advertising. That name is never
going be available to a registrant that wants to use it for
content or commerce.
Reality 2: will see Innovative ways to identify and control
premium names at launch, and then afterwards, when words and
phrases suddenly acquire premium value ( h1n1.whatever)
There’s Nothing illegal about that, and new Ry contracts allow
uncapped and variable premium pricing. And you don’t have to own a
registrar to monetize your names – I’ve been educated about that.
But let’s stop kidding ourselves and the internet public about how
new TLDs will let ordinary people register names they want but
can’t get today.
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,