RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Reviewing GTLD price increases' impact to tasting activity

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

We can theorize this issue forever.  The truth is at this point we do
not know who (if anyone) is right.  Let's just agree to recommend that
this issue (along with the myriad of other issues) be looked at in any
future policy process.  I see nothing wrong with that request.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 7:20 PM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Reviewing GTLD price increases' impact to
tasting activity


Jothan, I agree that it will be impossible to "prove" this issue one 
way or another, but an empirical analysis of the PIR day does give 
some interesting data.

In May 2007, before they imposed the $0.05 fee, three registrars who 
were largely responsible for their high AGP to overall ADD ratio had 
roughly 2.255 million AGP deletes and 13,000 net adds. If they had 
continued this practice, the $0.05 fee would have cost them $113k or 
$8.72 per kept domain (a 145% increase) - a far cry from the $0.42 
increase that VeriSign is not charging.

The $0.42 increase will certainly make monetization less attractive 
in the marginal cases, but it is hard to imagine that a 7% increase 
will wipe it out completely as the effective 145% PIR increase did.

Alan

At 22/10/2007 05:42 PM, Jothan Frakes wrote:

>Hi-
>
>I realize that my point about the price increase impacting tasting
>activity seems like a stretch, but it really is not difficult to
>rationalize.
>
>The misunderstanding seems to be that those who are domain tasting are
>focusing on the 4-5 day period.  This is not the case.  The objective
of
>the tasting activity appears to ultimately be the registration of and
>payment for domain names, not the 4-5 days of 'Free'.
>
>The theory (which I believe is a reasonable one) is that the attraction
>to work so hard with all the registration and deletion to obtain a
>registration evaporates due to the risen threshold that the new price
>causes, and subsequently the activity slows or stops because it is less
>attractive.
>
>I am requesting that review of this be part of whatever policy
>development process prior to enacting any policy that would eliminate
>AGP or disrupt the current technical protocols or the business logic
>underneath them, especially considering that this market factor could
>already be removing attraction to domain tasting.
>
>Some of the options put forth as methods (specifically delayed
>activation or the elimination of AGP) of addressing domain tasting
>include policy that could:
>         A] impair the experience of a standard registrant, or
>         B] impair registrars' ability to serve the registrant, or
>         C] introduce further technical or financial burden to the
>registrar in order to service their registrants, or
>         D] impact the registrars' ability to preserve security and
>stability of the provisioning system or
>         E] delay the activation of a domain for a registrant.
>
>The goal is to not have a situation arise where the process we are
>undertaking results in a policy that impairs the user experience of
>general registrants or the registrars that serve them in order to solve
>something that gets fixed by market forces.
>
>If a policy as a cure removes rights or impairs the user experience
only
>to have the thing that it was trying to cure no longer present, the
>community, registries, registrars, and ultimately the registrants are
>worse off and we have failed.
>
>If we saw PIR experience that $.05 per name curbed the activity, it
>seems to stand to reason that a change of $.35 to $.42 could have an
>impact.
>
>The way a 7-10% increase impacts the 'Free' period is that the same
>balance at a registry would mean 7-10% less domains are reviewed prior
>to keep evaluation.
>
>The fact is that the cost increase would in fact impact algorithms used
>for break even analysis on this activity from review of 72-118 hours
>worth of web traffic or PPC.
>
>This can not be proved or disproved without the data which is yet to
>exist, but as Tim mentioned, it could be interpreted from the Registry
>Zone Files which are publicly available, and then Registries themselves
>could elect to provide support for or against the theory.
>
>-Jothan
>
>Jothan Frakes
>
>Oversee Domain Services
>......................................................
>
>515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400
>Los Angeles, CA 90071
>direct +1.213.925.5206
>cell +1.206.355.0230
>jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>www.domainsponsor.com
>
>Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only
>for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
>this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
>responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any
>dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly
>prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss,
>disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur
>while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you
>have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by
>return e-mail. Thank you and have a nice day.  No lawyers were harmed
in
>the creation of this disclaimer.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:06 AM
>To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Reviewing GTLD price increases' impact to
>tasting activity
>
>
>Tim, I think it is a tenuous argument at best.
>Since the price increase only applies to the
>domains kept after the AGP, the effective cost per domain tasted is
VERY
>small.
>
>Alan
>
>At 22/10/2007 12:44 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >Kristina, I think the idea is that the names being tasted at this
point
> >are all out on the long tail of any potential return. So the
threshold
> >for a name to be considered profitable is very narrow between its
>return
> >and its cost. A increase in registration cost would make it even
> >narrower and perhaps bring into the question whether tasting
continues
> >to be a practical way to try to find the names that would still
return
>a
> >profit.
> >
> >I think that argument *may* have some merit, but I'm not completely
> >convinced either. Regardless, if that is the case, we should be able
to
> >see the impact (or lack thereof) by monitoring the zone file activity
> >and not have to wait for the registry reports to be posted. And of
> >course, the registries can report on the impact separately and sooner
> >themselves if they choose to.
> >
> >
> >Tim
> >
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Reviewing GTLD price increases' impact to
> >tasting activity
> >From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> >Date: Thu, October 18, 2007 3:26 pm
> >To: "Jothan Frakes" <jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >Jothan,
> >
> >I don't follow how the registry price increases will curb tasting if
>the
> >AGP is being used for no-charge registrations.  From my perspective,
a
> >refund is a refund - it just may be a bigger one.  (It may be more
> >accurate to say that no charge is no charge.  The point is the same.)
> >It's not clear to me what market factor/disincentive you anticipate.
> >I'd like to understand the analysis.
> >
> >Having said that, the likelihood that the IPC will be willing to wait
>an
> >additional six months is between slim and none.  If that makes us
> >imprudent and unreasonable, so be it.
> >
> >Kristina
> >
> >From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On
> >Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
> >Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:26 PM
> >To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] Reviewing GTLD price increases' impact to
tasting
> >activity
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi-
> >
> >I acknowledge the desire to take action on domain tasting is strong
> >within some constituencies; I'd like to suggest that the recent price
> >increases enacted at registries may have a role in curbing the
>activity.
> >
> >The recent price increases on the GTLDs may create a market factor
that
> >significantly removes the financial benefit to tasting because of the
> >higher per unit cost.
> >
> >Ultimately, this theory cannot be proved or disproved until data from
> >the registries for the month of November (the first full calendar
month
> >that would reflect the results of the change) can be reviewed.
> >
> >How soon would it be before we would see the registry reports that
>would
> >reflect November 2007 (the first full calendar month that would
reflect
> >the change) in them to indicate if the GTLD price increases created a
>de
> >facto solution?
> >
> >It seems to me that some review of the results of the price increases
> >before proposing any solution would be prudent and sensible.
> >
> >-Jothan
> >
> >
> >
> >Jothan Frakes
> >
> >Oversee Domain Services
> >......................................................
> >
> >
> >515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400
> >Los Angeles, CA 90071
> >direct +1.213.925.5206
> >cell +1.206.355.0230
> >jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >www.domainsponsor.com
> >
> >Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended
only
> >for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
> >this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
> >responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any
> >dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly
> >prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any
loss,
> >disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur
> >while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If
you
> >have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by
> >return e-mail. Thank you and have a nice day.
> >
> >
> >