RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name Market
- To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name Market
- From: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:19:29 -0400
Can you point this group to where the crafters of the RGP spelled out
what you describe as Phase Two?
[mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:03 PM
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name
Yesterday I became rather passionate on one of the statements that I
Jeff made in connection with competition in the secondary domain name
market. Instead of only utilizing our weekly calls to expand upon
thought the use of this listserv would be a good means to deep dive on
As you may recall, the original redemption grace period was intended to
two phases. Phase One was the ability of a registrant to recover a
name that had been deleted through the original sponsoring registrar.
Two, envisioned, but never implemented, was the ability of a registrant
have choice in which registrar they recovered a domain name.
Now while there is no shortage of people shouting from the rooftops
choice and competition in the domain name marketplace, there actually
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
yesterday on the call that registrars are functioning as quasi
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
Michael D. Palage