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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

Please refer to the following documentation on the original RGP

" In general terms, the Technical Steering Group proposes to implement the
so-called "Redemption Grace Period" in two stages. In the first stage, a
"safety net" would be established to prevent unintentional deletions by
extending the applicability and duration of the current "Delete Pending
Period" and creating a new "RESTORE" capability at the registry level that
will permit the "redemption" of unintentionally deleted names. In the second
stage, implementation of a capability allowing inter-registrar transfers of
deleted names would allow registrants to choose which registrar will
"restore" their inadvertently deleted names."

See http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm

Best regards,

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Diaz, Paul [mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:19 PM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: PEDNR
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name
Market

Mike,

Can you point this group to where the crafters of the RGP spelled out
what you describe as Phase Two?

Thanks, P

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:03 PM
To: 'PEDNR'
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name
Market


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