RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Anti-Trust Red Herring
OK, let's not spend more energy on this for the moment. We know that some registrars will return a domain back to the RAE for their normal annual fee, and some greatly increase the price. Some registrars have an RGP fee just somewhat over the Registry fee, and others charge a lot more. I am not sure what is be gained at this time in identifying which registrar uses which model. If Michael (who initially raised the issue) or someone else feels that this information is important to us, we will have staff seek an initial legal opinion on the issue. Alan At 14/08/2009 02:43 PM, Mason Cole wrote: I agree with Tim. It certainly has been drummed into registrars? heads as far back as I can recall that any discussion of pricing among two or more competitors, no matter how innocuous, is too risky to engage in. I?m not an attorney and can?t offer legal theory in reply to you, Mike, but must also err on the side of caution. Further, it?s clear that pricing doesn?t fit the scope of this group in any way.The stated questions of the group are the following:1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined);5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.I believe data for those questions is readily available, and if evidence exists indicating a problem extensive enough to warrant resources from ICANN, best practices can be employed to resolve them and registrars would be favorably disposed toward helping them become a reality.-----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:56 PM To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Michael D. Palage Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Anti-Trust Red Herring Mike, You wrote: > Under your theory of anti-trust laws, registrars can hide from > prospective Registered Name Holders the price they may have to pay to > recover/renew a domain name? Your confusing the issue, I will assume unintentionally. Consensus policy requires registrars to publicly post their fee for recovering names from the registry RGP. However, there is nothing that requires registrars to post publicly or announce to their competitors what their pricing is for renewals or for recovering an expired name not yet in the registry RGP. Some registrars may, but it is not something we can or should expect just because we throw around terms like *transparency* and *openness.* Registrars, as was fully intended, are competitors. That brings with it a natural limit on how open and transparent they are willing to be on various issues when not required. That has nothing to do with anti-trust. While collecting such data does not raise anti-trust issues itself, the use of that data in various discussions here certainly could. Go Daddy, will error on the side of caution and not be involved in such discussions, and if past experience is any indication, so will many other registrars. Hopefully, that clarifies my concerns. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Anti-Trust Red Herring From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, August 11, 2009 1:12 pm To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx Mike: Setting aside any anit-trust concerns, what could be done with this information? Presuming that it is beyond ICANN's remit to set or cap pricing/markup on the part of registrars. (Questions 9 & 10 in your proposed survey). Wouldn't it be less complex to focus on redemption fees charged by registries? These are public, correct? J. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Anti-Trust Red Herring From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, August 11, 2009 1:00 pm To: <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> Tim/Mason: I fully agree that competitors in a marketplace discussing pricing is a NO-NO, but that is not what I am proposing. What I am asking the group to investigate is what is the price consumers are paying to recover/renew a domain name. If we are all about openness, transparency and predictability regarding protecting the interests of registrants please explain the legal basis that anti-trust laws prevent the collection of this data that should be publicly available? Under your theory of anti-trust laws, registrars can hide from prospective Registered Name Holders the price they may have to pay to recover/renew a domain name? Please correct me if I am wrong. Best regards, Michael From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:19 PM To: Tim Ruiz; michael@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional Fact Finding and Proposed Registar Survey Questions I concur with Tim?s request ? a discussion of pricing is precluded for those reasons. I believe Mike?s proposed registrar survey is premature ? there is insufficient clarity as to what demonstrated harm this group is working to cure. Until that data is known, it is irresponsible consider policy or survey registrars on their business practices. We have to know the extent of the problem, if in fact it does exist, and how it most often occurs if we?re to responsibly orient our actions. Further, I can predict some registrars will be extremely hesitant to reply to a survey if that kind of information is not made available, and may perceive this effort to be unnecessary regulation of their businesses. I believe this group will get better registrar cooperation in any effort if this group can talk about specific harms occurring to their registrants and enlist their suggestions in dealing with those harms, rather than moving immediately to changes in procedure that can be disruptive to customer relationships and are costly in terms of resources. To that end I need to ask for clarity: · Again, what is the precise problem? The initial issues report indicates it?s to prevent unintended loss of a name. Is that still the case? Or are there other hoped-for outcomes? o Corollary: I know there?s a stated desire for more predictability. As a matter of further clarity, I would ask: Is the need for more predictability a way to prevent unintended loss of a name? Or is it desired for another reason? · What is the demonstrated extent of the problem? How often do registrants lose a name and cannot have it recovered in any scenario? · Where is the source of the problem and how does it occur specifically? o I heard quite a bit of discussion in Sydney about resellers being the real source of the problem. I still have not seen any kind of documentation about how this is the case. I would like to understand that better. How can that information be made available to this group? I firmly believe data beyond the anecdotal is necessary to be accurately informed. Proposing policy on the anecdotal, or on what might happen (as stated in the issues report request), is a waste of our time and ICANN?s resources. If information beyond the anecdotal is simply unavailable, I suggest it?s irresponsible to work toward policy that may or may not accomplish anything, and may in fact have unintended consequences. I read William?s report to this group and understand it may be difficult to document and/or categorize name recovery efforts. That is a challenge to this group, but if our efforts are to be accurately directed, it?s necessary. You may have seen that in the past few days, a study commissioned by ICANN to find evidence of ?front-running? found, in fact, that there is no evidence of front-running (as currently defined). This was after front-running was assumed to be happening and had been in active discussion in various parts of the community as a target of policy development. (I?m no fan of front-running, but given the report, I?d hope the community is focusing its attention on the myriad issues that do actually exist.) I want to be clear that I do not seek to delay or obstruct. I don?t speak for all registrars, but I believe I can say the distinct majority of registrars are very much interested in ensuring good treatment of their customers?as I mentioned in Sydney, the registrar business is extremely competitive and it simply costs too much in time and effort to attract customers simply to abuse that relationship for the sake of selling a name. I would hope this group understands that. There are a range of options available to us to encourage registrants to be aware of the need to maintain valuable names, encourage good reseller practices, etc. I look forward to a more refined look at the situation as it exists, and to today?s call. -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 4:50 AM To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional Fact Finding and Proposed Registar Survey Questions I apologize but I cannot make the call today. I will listen to the recording later. Regarding Mike's survey questions I ask that any questions related registrar pricing be removed for two reasons. 1. Pricing is excluded from consensus policy in the RAA. 2. Registrars cannot discuss it here due to antitrust concerns. Tim Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional Fact Finding and Proposed Registar > Survey Questions > From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, August 10, 2009 9:42 pm > To: <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Hello All: > > Just doing some additional > fact finding in connection > with Tuesday's PENDR Working > Group call. > > On the issue of creating > openness, transparency and > predictability for registrants > with regard to recovering > expired domain names, I share > the following information > regarding divergent practices > by gTLD registries. I submit > that these divergent practices > are neither a good or a bad > thing, but that their > existence does seem to suggest > the need for a predictable > safety net to protect > registrant interests. > > The Majority of registries > .COM, .NET, .NAME, .JOBS, > .INFO, .ORG, .ASIA, .MOBI, > .AERO, and .PRO debit the > registrar of record's account > the renewal rate, and then > give that registrar 45 days to > cancel the domain name and > receive a credit. During this > window the Whois associated > with this domain name will not > show the original expiration > date, but a date one year from > the expiration based upon the > money that was debited from > the registrar's account. > > There is a minority number of > registries, .BIZ, .TRAVEL, TEL > and .CAT that do not debit the > registrar account until the > end of the 45 day auto-renewal > grace period. During this time > the Whois will reflect the > original expiration date in > the Whois. > > The .COOP registry has a 5 day > grace period following > expiration where the domain > name still appears in the zone > file. After this 5 day grace > period the domain name is > removed from the zone file for > 40 days. Forty five days after > expiration the domain name is > made available for > re-registration. > > During the last call I > suggested the need to get some > data points from within the > registrar/reseller community. > In an effort to jump start > that effort, I have proposed a > list of survey questions that > the group may wish to discuss > tomorrow. I am sure some of my > former registrar colleagues > will propose some mark-ups to > these questions but given the > shrinking window between now > and Seoul, I thought I would > take a first crack at this > important fact gathering > survey. (see below) > > I look forward to tomorrow's > call and I want to thank > William and Tatyana for their > previous posts I found them > very constructive. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > Proposed Registrar Survey > Questions: > > 1) What is the registrar's > practice regarding a domain > name at the time of expiration > when the registrant gives > explicit instructions > regarding its intention NOT to > renew the domain names? (i.e. > does the registrar process and > delete command, does the > registrar change the whois > prior to expiration, does the > registrar allow the domain > name to auto-renew in those > registries that employ that > policy, etc.) > > 2) What is the registrar's > practice regarding a domain > name at the time of expiration > when the registrant is silent > regarding its intention to > renew a domain name? (i.e. > does the registrar process and > delete command, does the > registrar change the whois > prior to expiration, does the > registrar allow the domain > name to auto-renew in those > registries that employ that > policy, etc.) > > 3) Does the registrar > affirmatively change any of > the underlying Whois data > associated with the domain > name in or around the time of > expiration? (yes/no) > > 4) Does the registrar of > record have any contractual > terms in the original > registration agreement > regarding the treatment of the > domain name registration > service contract at the time > of expiration? If so what are > they? > > 5) If the registrar changes > the Whois data at the time of > expiration is that practice > dependent upon the TLD (i.e. > auto-renew v.s. > non-auto-renew) or is the > change in underlying Whois > data the same regardless of > the TLD? > > 6) Does the registrar or any > affiliate offer any value > added services regarding the > sale/auction of domain names > after their date of original > expiration, if so what are > those services? > > 7) Does the registrar or any > affiliate provide any revenue > share opportunities in > connection with any revenue > recognized in connection with > the value added services with > the registrant prior to > expiration? If so what are > they? > > 8) Does the registrar or > affiliate provide the > registrant prior to expiration > the right to remove a name > from this value added service > offering? > > 9) What is the cost to the > registrant to recover/renew a > domain name during the > Registry Redemption Grace > Period? (Note in providing > this cost do not include the > registry cost component which > may vary per TLD, only provide > the registrar mark-up?) Is > this mark-up the same across > all TLDs, or does it vary from > TLD to TLD? How many of your > domain name registrants pay > this fee on an annual basis? > > 10)What is the cost to the > registrant to recover/renew a > domain name post expiration > but prior to the imposition of > any Registry Redemption Grace > Period. (Note in providing > this cost do not include the > registry cost component which > may vary per TLD, only provide > the registrar mark-up?) Is > this mark-up the same across > all TLDs, or does it vary from > TLD to TLD? How many of your > domain name registrants pay > this fee on an annual basis? > > 11)Aside from these two > recovery/renewal windows does > the registrar impose any fees > on a registrant other than a > regular renewal price to > renew/re-register the domain > name? If so what are? How many > of your domain name > registrants pay this > additional fee on an annual > basis? > > 12)Does the registrar or > affiliate provide the > registrant the ability to > renew/re-register a domain > name once it has entered an > auction process? If so what > are the costs imposed on the > registrant? > > 13)Are participants in > registrar or affiliates > auction apprised of the > registrant's rights to > renew/re-register a domain > name during the auction? If so > how and what are the terms of > that notification? > > 14)For those registrars or > their affiliates that provide > auction services with the > ability of the registrant to > renew/re-register a name, what > number of registrants have > exercised that right? > > 15)What percentage of the > overall gTLD market does the > registrar responding to this > questionnaire represent? > > 16)Is the registrar responding > to this questionnaire part of > a family of registrars sharing > common ownership?
|