ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[biz-tld-agreement]


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

Re: [ga] The End of Domain Tasting and its Consequences

  • To: kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] The End of Domain Tasting and its Consequences
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:26:43 -0700

Chris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  Nicely summed up here Chirs.  And again you beat me to the
punch.  Danny also gave some very good points and history that
would seemingly support your summation here as well.

  I also agree and thank Michael for some of his very good suggestions
as well, as he does have a very good finger on the gist of what safeguards
these new contracts need to provide for registrants and at the same time
engender healthy compition.
See: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04439.html

  I would add the following:

  ICANN, and many of its registries and registrars have not honored
it's contracts or agreements with the stakeholder/user community.
ICANN has also been very well aware of same and cannot or will
not sanction accordingly.  Hence it seeks to change terms of said
contractual agreements to allow for more abuse toward stakeholder,
registrants, and indirectly users after the fact.  This is wrong, and
wrong headed means of doing good business or is in contradiction to what
Vint has been fond in saying on occasion, "Do good works".

  Let us all also not be deluded in Vint's words, but take stock in
his actions or lack  there of and also not to forget that many companies
have recently committed virtual suicide, not least among these was
Vints old employer, Worldcom/con.  If I am not mistaken at the higth
of the Worldcom/con scandal, Vint did not take any real action and there
was some consideration by DOJ as to some complicitness by Vint.

kidsearch wrote:

> "As Vint properly noted in his email, it would be virtual suicide for "most"
> registry operators to abuse this discretion."
>
> That is the equivalent about what gw bush said about giving 15 years of back
> taxes to the corporations. Congress wanted to put in a stipulation that if
> the US Gov gave them this tax break they have to create x number of new jobs
> with it since it was meant or sold as being for the creation of jobs. Bush's
> reply was that you don't need to have strings attached, these corporations
> will do the right thing.
>
> Sorry but contracts are not in place because we assume everyone will do the
> right thing. If that were the case why have any contract for the registries
> at all. Why not just trust them to do the right thing always? You cannot
> assume they will not do something because YOU or VINT thinks it would not be
> in their best interest to do it, therefore meaning they will not do it.
>
> A contract is put into place and you attempt to cover every scenario you can
> think of. You cannot imagine every possibility in the world, but this one
> has been brought to your attention and you can do something about it by
> placing it into the contract.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> http://icann.thingsthatjustpissmeoff.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Thomas Narten'" <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:27 PM
> Subject: RE: [ga] The End of Domain Tasting and its Consequences
>
> > Thomas:
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this "nondiscrimatory" provision out to the GA list.
> > I agree that this would prevent against the specific scenario which
> > Danny has outlined in his email.
> >
> > I also think it is important that this "nondiscriminatory" concept be
> > analyzed in connection with the pricing models which has been a recent
> > topic of discussion on the GA list as well. I appreciate Vint's
> > professionalism in providing the answer to George's  had sought in
> > advance of the close of the public comment period.
> >
> > I have some points of agreement and divergence with George's response to
> > Vint's email so let me begin from the top.
> >
> > Under existing ICANN registry contracts, not all domain names are
> > created equal, this may surprise many people. For example, if you look
> > at the .MOBI registry contract Appendix S, Part 4 Attachment 1,
> > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/mobi/mobi-appendixS-23nov05.htm,
> > you will see that the .MOBI registry operator currently has the legal
> > right to allocate domain names on an otherwise than first come first
> > serve basis at a uniform price.  Specifically, it can allocate "Premium
> > Names on a One time initial purchase", or as listed in the future
> > registry services section "Premium names sold via multi-year fee
> > structure." This is also consistent with the .MOBI launch which has done
> > so with multiple price points (sunrise, landrush, premium, post
> > landrush).
> >
> > My personal opinion is that ICANN needs to focus on preventing a
> > registry operator due to its sole source contract from abusing that
> > position within the marketplace by allowing discriminatory pricing. If a
> > registry operator is merely imposing an equitable pricing model on the
> > same class of domain names, that is not discriminatory. As Vint properly
> > noted in his email, it would be virtual suicide for "most" registry
> > operators to abuse this discretion. George and I have discussed on the
> > Business Constituency list how .COM is the dominant registry operator in
> > the marketplace. Being a lawyer I refrain from throwing around the "M"
> > word (monopoly) as it has significant legal consequences. But I believe
> > an email by Jeff Neuman on the GA list a couple of weeks ago
> > acknowledged the importance that VeriSign has on setting price within
> > the gTLD marketplace.
> >
> > The portfolio of most professional registrants (domainers) are composed
> > of .com domain names. They are probably only concerned with what happens
> > in .info, .biz or .org as the precedent that this may set for VeriSign
> > having that same legal right under the .COM contract.
> >
> > As I tried to discuss with George on the Business constituency list, I
> > believe the provision in the new registry contracts to refer to
> > "appropriate governmental competition authorit[ies]" matters involving
> > new registry services (i.e. differential pricing) is very important.
> > This change in the new ICANN registry contracts is important as it
> > recognizes ICANN's limited scope of authority, which ties into a recent
> > exchange I had with Karl regarding the scope and source of ICANN's
> > authority.
> >
> > I think as ICANN gains experience with the new Funnel Process which went
> > live earlier this week, the real question needs to focus on is the 45
> > day referral window to the appropriate competition authority reasonable?
> > Additionally, are these competition authorities suitably tasked with
> > handling submissions from ICANN?
> >
> > If I was still on the Board this is the one question that I would be
> > asking. Given ICANN's recent decisions to extricate itself from
> > overseeing registry pricing, are the governmental safeguards that it has
> > in place adequate to protect domain name registrants. Given the length
> > of the DoC/DoJ review of the VeriSign .COM agreement, I think the 45 day
> > period as currently contained in the base registry contracts may not be
> > suitable. However, these are questions not specifically directed to the
> > .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG contracts but to all the ICANN registry contracts
> > which have this important provision (.NET, .TRAVEL, .JOBS, MOBI, and
> > .CAT).
> >
> > Thanks again for your constructive comments and I hope my feedback is
> > equally constructive. I also appreciate both your and Veni's
> > contribution to the GA list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of Thomas Narten
> > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:21 AM
> > To: Danny Younger
> > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ga] The End of Domain Tasting and its Consequences
> >
> >
> > Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > For example, what if VeriSign and/or others decided to
> > > sell this data for a high price to a single speculator
> > > that had a relationship with a single registrar.
> > > Would this violate current registrar equal access
> > > requirements created to ensure competition?  Probably
> > > not, as the registry would be selling data to a third
> > > party and not directly to the registrar community.
> >
> > > What if these registries decided to put all their data (including data
> >
> > > on existing domains) up for auction? Most likely a single party such
> > > as Google or Yahoo would prevail at auction.  Is it appropriate for a
> > > single entity to have exclusive use of such registry
> > > data?
> >
> > Wouldn't this run afoul of the last sentence of the clause relating to
> > "Traffic Data", namely:
> >
> > > To the extent that traffic data subject to this provision is made
> > > available, access shall be on terms that are nondiscriminatory.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 8/23/06
> >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827




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