RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name Market

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike and Group:

It probably doesn't surprise anyone that I disagree with this
characterization of "monopoly" in the secondary market, as by definition
there are numerous providers.  

At best, it could be said that the incumbent registrar has "limited
exclusivity" for any given name, in that they have a brief window of
time to make it available to others.  But once this time period expires,
it is returned to the "general" pool for offering by other providers, or
re-registration.

I liken this to Microsoft not having a "monopoly" on office /
collaboration products, but they are the Exclusive provider of Word and
Excel.  As a consumer, I am free to choose alternatives (OpenOffice /
iWork / Google), but if I -insist- on using Word or Excel, then I must
engage their exclusive provider.

J.


   -------- Original Message --------
 Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name
 Market
 From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Wed, September 09, 2009 2:03 pm
 To: "'PEDNR'" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
 
 
 Hello All:
 
 Yesterday I became rather passionate on one of the statements that I
believe
 Jeff made in connection with competition in the secondary domain name
 market. Instead of only utilizing our weekly calls to expand upon
issues, I
 thought the use of this listserv would be a good means to deep dive on
this
 particular topic.
 
 As you may recall, the original redemption grace period was intended to
have
 two phases. Phase One was the ability of a registrant to recover a
domain
 name that had been deleted through the original sponsoring registrar.
Phase
 Two, envisioned, but never implemented, was the ability of a registrant
to
 have choice in which registrar they recovered a domain name. 
 
 Now while there is no shortage of people shouting from the rooftops
about
 choice and competition in the domain name marketplace, there actually
exists
 a monopoly in the expired domain name market where it appears that the
 original sponsoring registrar gets to determine the when and how of the
 reallocating/deleting expired domain names. I stand by the statement I
made
 yesterday on the call that registrars are functioning as quasi
registries in
 determining the allocation processes by which expired names sponsored
by
 them are reallocated.
 
 Therefore, if we are looking to promote the openness, transparency and
 predictability upon which a registrant after expiration can recover an
 expired name, we need to address the apparent currently monopoly in the
 marketplace where than registrant has but one choice to recover his/her
 domain name.
 
 Best regards,
 
 Michael D. Palage