Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Front-Running

[Roland Perry <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message 
<3F4F8917F53D5344889872BDDF2F3D3ADD91B8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, at 
15:19:14 on Wed, 5 Aug 2009, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 
writes
> Personally speaking, I do not like all of the analogies that are being
> made between the domain name industry and the financial markets.  The
> financial markets were set up as just that...marketplaces for the sale
> and purchase of securities (as an example).
They were originally set up to allow people to raise capital by selling 
shares in their companies. The fact that a resale market in those shares 
has developed is a by-product.
> The domain name industry was set up to accommodate those that wanted to 
> associate a domain name with an IP address (because IP addresses were 
> thought to be too difficult to remember).
It doesn't necessarily need an "industry". My first domain name was a 
.co.uk, back in the days (pre-Nominet) when the registration process was 
done by volunteers.
> They were intended to allow persons, companies, organizations, etc. to 
> establish a presence and to allow others to reach them for the exchange 
> of information, commerce, etc.  It was not to establish a commodities 
> market for domain names to be bought and sold.
But domain names can accidentally acquire a value, when a different 
registrant thinks it might be worth his while "buying" a registration.
A friend had registered goldfish.co.uk because that was his hobby. 
Several years later (warning: financial services involved) a bank 
decided to launch a credit card called "Goldfish". Guess what domain 
they had forgotten to investigate first.
(To save you looking, it's now registered to the bank which later bought 
the brand and closed it down).
> The fact that a domainer market has developed is a by-product.
Anything that can be registered has a value. I have a "vanity" car 
registration plate, which in the UK (certainly at the time) could not be 
constructed on demand (for money or otherwise) by the registration 
authority. You had to buy it off the person who was originally randomly 
assigned it.
> I am not making a value judgment about domaining or domainers. However, 
> I personally believe that just because a registry or registrar does 
> something that is perceived to be unfair to a domainer, or the fact 
> that an act by a registry or registrar favors or disfavors a domainer, 
> does not necessarily mean that that act or policy is a "registration 
> abuse."
If someone registers a domain speculatively because they have reason to 
believe it might be of interest, *and* then "holds it to ransom", that 
is an abuse. If they offer to transfer it to a registrant for exactly 
the same cost as the registrant could have obtained it for themselves, 
then probably not.
You may think that scenario unlikely, but I have a friend who runs an 
ISP and whenever I tell him about a new venture I have, he rushes off 
and defensively registers several domain names that I would not (and do 
not) want. But if I did, I know he would transfer them to me at cost.
> This may be controversial what I am about to say, but I will say it:  If
> a registry decides to provide access to certain non-registration data to
> certain parties, and the provision of such data could give the recipient
> of that data some sort of superior knowledge about domain names or the
> industry, I do not see that as a registration abuse that we should be
> discussing or is even within the scope of this group.  In other words,
> traffic data for unregistered names, for example, is by definition NOT
> registration data.
It is data that can be used to decide to register domains. And is 
therefore registration data. At worst, it is lack-of-registration data, 
which is merely the negative of registration data, and in my world the 
continuum of data has both positive and negative values.
--
Roland Perry