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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am speaking here on my own behalf and not as Interim Chair.

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying regarding the 
original intent (to the extent that we can do this) and the current 
situation where a registrar of record has an  advantage over others 
regarding expired names. Whether this is a reasonable result of the 
marketplace and innovation, or a problem that must be resolved is 
certainly a subject that might encourage lively debate.
But, assuming that the present WG comes up with effective ways of 
ensuring that a registrant does not lose a registration without 
sufficient cause, I am not yet convinced with how much this is really 
helping the RAE.
If a name has perceived value based on the semantic analysis, it will 
be picked up by SOMEBODY, even if it is deleted by the original 
registrar. So the situation to the registrant is the same.
A more interesting case is if the name has value based purely on the 
traffic it receives. In such a case, the perceived value is only 
known to the registrar who intercepts traffic to that domain during 
the post-expiration period. In that case, the original registrar is 
going to be highly motivated to try to pick it up after the drop. 
This could be prevented by forbidding intercept (that is, pointing 
the DNS to their own web pages).
So to have any effect, one would have to forbid transfers after 
expiration, reverting to the original intent of a domain that expires 
will be dropped if not renewed by the RAE, with no opportunity to 
"taste" the domain the expiration grace period.
Is this what you are asking for?

Alan


At 09/09/2009 03:03 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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