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

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

James,

I am the proud registrant of DNWG.ORG which is sponsored by my registrar of 
choice GoDaddy. I liked DNWG because I thought it could be cool blog site for 
Domain Name Working Group policy wonks like myself. That name is set to 
"expire" on Nov 20, 2009. Whether I tell my registrar to delete it or say 
nothing GoDaddy will pay PIR a renewal fee on Nov 20, 2009. Now GoDaddy has 
posted on their web site in a very open, transparent and predicable fashion 
what I can expect to happen, Day 5 Notice; Day 12 Hold; Day 19 Redemption Fee; 
Day 25 Auction begins; Day 42 Name deleted, see 
http://help.godaddy.com/article/608. 

Currently the DNWG.ORG exists in the PIR .ORG registry database because when I 
registered this domain name through GoDaddy you did so on my behalf with the 
reasonable expectation of payment (i.e. you had my credit card on file). Now if 
I decide not to renew that domain name either intentionally or unintentionally 
on Nov 21st that name will continue to exist in the PIR database as a result of 
contract that I entered into, and which has been "extended" via the 
auto-renewal practice. 

Now let's say Bob Parson does something really outrageous that caused me to 
decide to switch my service to another provide, because as we all know Bob 
never does anything outrageous or controversial. After Nov 21st I have no 
choice in who I can renew/extend/recover that domain name. Now you and I can 
split hairs on whether this lack of choice is a permissive "limited 
exclusivity" or monopolistic restraint of choice as original envisioned in the 
Second Stage of the RGP.

I support openness, transparency, and choice in the marketplace on behalf of 
registrants. These qualities do not waiver merely because a domain name has 
expired. Somehow some registrars forget these principles when contractual 
rights that were originally vested in the registrant provide that registrar or 
an affiliate the ability to profit off that domain name through a value added 
service. That is why I continue to advocate a Stage 2 as originally envision 
where registrants have a choice in registrars, as opposed to today were they 
have only one. 

With regard to your Microsoft Office analogy, I do not think it is on all fours 
with the current situation. I purchased my original version of Office 2000 from 
Circuit City, when I wanted to upgrade(renew) that software I purchased the 
Office 2007 version from either Costco or BestBuy. I was not required (or 
beholden to renew the software application) with Circuit City. I think a 
registry/software vendor has a legitimate interest in ensuring that customers 
(current/future) have a choice in purchasing their product, and that no 
vendor/registrar should be able to exert a monopoly ("limited exclusivity) in 
that product/service offering.

Best regards,

Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:24 PM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: 'PEDNR'
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] "Competition" in the Secondary Domain Name Market

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