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

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry to have missed yesterday's call.  I will try to listen to the
MP3 this week.

I disagree with the characterization of "monopoly."  I don't want to
split hairs about marketplace definitions, but I very much doubt that's
an accurate application of the word in this instance and prefer we not
use terms that could be needlessly inflammatory.

To the broader point, I also don't see how trying to break down the
aftermarket would yield answers to the charter questions:

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.

Maybe some aftermarket activity applies to (5), but the original intent
of this WG, as it was made clear, was to prevent the unintentional loss
of a domain name by the registrant.  Given that such unintentional
losses happen so infrequently, or that evidence of more frequency can't
be found, deconstructing the aftermarktet is butterflies and wheels, and
certainly is out of the focus of the charter. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:32 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; 'PEDNR'
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name
Market


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