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

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn Cade wrote:
> 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.

What's with the word games? You implied that there are 800 operational 
registrars. I stated that there were approximately 200 operational 
registrars, and 600 playing the drop game. These 600 have the same 
accreditation requirements as any other registrar, but they do not sell 
registrations to the "regular" market - meaning that they have 
immaterial amounts of data in their whois - these are secondary market 
players that seek to acquire names dropping from the primary market and 
take them into private portfolios - which are traditionally managed 
through regular operational registrars (i.e. the 200 or so). I think you 
have arranged several consultations and discussions at various ICANN 
meetings that specifically discussed these market dynamics.

You are the only one that seems to be confused on these points - or 
maybe not confused...being coy? I'm really not sure. More to the point, 
you claim that there is a need for consistency across registrars, yet 
you seem quick to duck the question of "why". Its impossible to move 
forward towards an understanding of what the issues are if we don't 
understand the context of your question. What issues are you seeing and 
what data do you have to suggest that your observation is more than just 
a localized problem?

From my perspective, the real confusion comes from the FUD you put 
forward as the basis for this exploration and not from any of the 
information that Paul and I have shared.

In the interests of trying to understand your position in the hopes that 
we can actually move the ball forward, I'll ask the original question 
again -

You said:

> > 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.

To which I asked:

> 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.

Sooo....what is it?

-ross