RE: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of preliminarytask force report on Whois services

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

By my count, there are 50 registrars with more than 200,000 domain names
(com net org info biz us).

These registrars have most of the names on their platforms.

This list of 50 includes, for example, bulkregister and enom, and
godaddy and wildwest all as separate entities though we all know enom
owns bulk and godaddy owns wildwest.

Plus, they do not all have different policies.  Some do not even offer
ID-Protect/Proxy type services.

Plus hundreds of the registrars not in the top-50 are owned by ones that
are in the top-50.

Therefore, there are really only a few (as I estimated, 20, but now I'm
thinking, even less) different policies.

I'm saying that it is already fairly consistent approaches: what makes
you think it isn't?

Please stop confusing the number of registrars on the ICANN list with
the number of policies.

 

 

I can attest that there is extreme competition on the registrar level.  

Some might be concerned there is not enough competition among icann
consultants.  :>)

 

________________________________

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:18 PM
To: Paul Stahura; ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of
preliminarytask force report on Whois services

 

hmmm, IF there are 20 registrars, then some might be concerned that we
don't have the robust competition that ICANN takes credit for. but I've
seen statements by the ICANN staff that there are far more... so I am
truly confused now!  

the question was whether there is a problem to get consistency across
registrars, and it looks like Ross and Paul are suggesting a
concentration of registration in a way that should make it simple to get
to some consistent approaches since Paul is suggesting that there are
only really 20 registrars or suggesting that there are 200 at most. Both
are useful facts. 

I suggest that the ICANN staff provide the facts of how many accredited
registrars there are, so the facts are clear to the TF and to the
stakeholders who need to consider any policy recommendations. 

        
________________________________


        From:  "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
        To:  <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>,"Ross Rader Rader"
<ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
        CC:  "Maria Farrell"
<maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>,<gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Subject:  RE: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of
preliminarytask force report on Whois services
        Date:  Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:28:15 -0800
        >Marilyn,
        >
        >I think you know he is not saying that there are 600 registrars
without
        >whois.
        >I think what he is saying is that there are not really 800
different
        >policies out there, that there are less than 200 (at most).
And in my
        >opinion, it's more like 20.
        >
        >Nice try at trying to make it seem like there are 800 unruly
        >off-the-reservation registrars out there.
        >
        >And what makes you think registrants do not have certainty and
        >predictability now?
        >
        >
        >-----Original Message-----
        >From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
        >On Behalf Of marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
        >Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:01 AM
        >To: Ross Rader Rader
        >Cc: 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        >Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of
        >preliminarytask force report on Whois services
        >
        >Thanks, Ross. I am curious abt something though. And your role
in
        >speaking for the registrars is helpful. So, does that mean 600
        >registrars are given a free ride by ICANN and don't actually
have WHOIS?
        >And if so, isn't that a violation of accreditation?
        >Regards,
        >Marilyn Cade
        >
        >
        >-----Original Message-----
        >From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
        >Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:28:38
        >To:Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        >Cc:'Maria Farrell' <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>,
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        >Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of
        >preliminary
        >  task force report on Whois services
        >
        >Marilyn Cade wrote:
        >
        > > However, I don't believe that this is supportable over 800
registrars.
        >Some
        > > form of standardized procedures will undoubtedly be needed
to bring
        > > certainty and predictability to registrants, irregardless of
the
        >interests
        > > of registrars to develop kinds of services in this area.
        >
        >Again, I'm going to ask what the basis for this contention is?
Your
        >personal conjecture isn't sufficient to turn "belief" into
fact.
        >
        >If you have data that you'd like to share with the TF on this
point, I'd
        >
        >encourage you to do so. I'd also like you better understand the
basis
        >for your implication that the basis for the registrar policy
position is
        >
        >to support the development of new services. This is simply not
the case.
        >
        >Please also note that the number of operational registrars has
been
        >relatively stable at around the 200 mark and that the remainder
of the
        >registrars in the 800 that you quote are controlled by one or
two
        >entities involved in the aftermarket game. They do not come
into play in
        >
        >consideration of this policy because they do not have real
registrants
        >to speak of.
        >
        >Finally, I think your conjecture confuses the needs of
registrants with
        >the needs of the intellectual property interests that you and
your
        >associates represent in this discussion.
        >
        >I would really urge you to reconsider the argument that you are
putting
        >forward considering that you are describing a large part of the
        >operational requirements that registrars already deal with in
their day
        >to day operations. We are not seeking to change our role as the
        >maintainer of registrant data in the registration process. The
        >implications you are making are completely unfounded (but
entirely
        >predictable unfortunately).
        >
        >Ross Rader
        >