Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] So, what's best for consumers? Anyone? Bueller?

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael - while I agree that the venue of registration (if I can call it that) 
is important to some sophisticated users, it probably isn't one that would show 
up on most domain registrants list if you asked people what was important to 
them.  (Yes, I know that such a survey has not been conducted, but I hope you 
will concede the point.)   Very few domain registrations end up in UDRP 
arbitration -- looking at the UDRP data from the study we did, the highest 
number was 40 UDRP actions per million names, or .0004%, and it was much less 
in other gTLDs.  

I'm not trying to say this is definitive data, since there are other kinds of 
litigation, but it is a decent indication of the scale of the issue that you're 
talking about. 

I think in any TLD it is potentially detrimental to use a registrar that's not 
in your country, and that situation pertains to many registrants today.  I 
don't think you can mandate that there be a registrar in every country, so I 
don't know how to respond to that concern, especially in the context of the 
vertical integration question.  

There are a number of second-order considerations that a registrant might 
consider before registering a name -- e.g., financial health of the registry, 
privacy policy and reputation for protecting privacy, loyalty discounts, etc.   
They are of concern, I suspect, to only a small minority of registrants. 

Antony



On Apr 1, 2010, at 3:23 AM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Anthony,
> 
> In determining what is best for consumers, isn't this the same question that
> GAC has been asking in connection with its call for additional studies?
> 
> While we have tended to disagree on many points as of late, I thought the
> one point we might be able to agree on was the survey jointly authored by
> myself, Avri, and Milton. The purpose of the survey was to show ICANN and
> the GAC, that the community clearly recognizes many different types of
> innovative models that have not yet been realized in the marketplace. Most
> importantly, many of the models/hypos were about "expanding" the use of the
> name space and not merely "duplicating" it. 
> 
> Unfortunately, instead of being viewed as a mechanism that could gather data
> to support the continued responsible expanse of the name space, it has
> unfortunately been interpreted as a delay tactic. I agree with Milton that
> your initial list is a good start for consideration. However, one important
> "legal" consideration/safeguard that you need to include, is the ability of
> a registrant to register a domain name without the fear of subjecting itself
> to a jurisdiction in a foreign land. There is an established body of law
> which has held that the mere registration of a domain name with a foreign
> registrar could subject that domain name to jurisdiction in that foreign
> court. In connection with potential community/cultural/linguist TLDs
> designed to meet the needs of a local/developing community, it would be
> detrimental for a registrant to have to use a foreign registrar because
> there was none in his/her country.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael Palage (aka Abe Froman - keeping with your Ferris Bueller themed
> email)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:59 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] So, what's best for consumers? Anyone? Bueller?
> 
> 
> I'm getting very concerned about how this discussion is going, and I'm
> surprised that it would be left to me to point this out.  I should have
> thought that one of those people who are forever making fine statements in
> public about protecting the consumer would have stuck their head up above
> the parapet by now to call this what it is.  
> 
> Judging from the discussion to date, one would think that it's OK, as a
> supposed policy-making body, for us to come up with all sorts of
> classifications and special pleading -- just so long as no-one  worries
> about the effect to consumers.   Since I joined this group, there's been
> hardly a word about the consumer.  It's been bare-faced haggling about who
> gets a commercial advantage. 
> 
> Consider: 
> 
> -- Single-registrant TLDs have been trotted out as a special case which get
> should get special favorable rules.  Leaving aside the fact that
> "single-registrant" is an egregious misnomer, since even within a
> "company-only" TLD there will be numerous registrants, the special treatment
> being considered is for the benefit of the applicant, not for the user.
> 
> -- Currently, the argument is being made that existing gTLD registries, with
> a ten-year head start over other applicants, should get a "level playing
> field" vis-a-vis those applicants who don't have ten years of revenues to
> spend on whatever they want -- for instance, buying up a bunch of
> registrars.  Maybe they should, but what has this got to do with the end
> user?
> 
> The CRA report makes a case that no separation is best for the consumer.
> The Board decision in Nairobi has as its underpinning an assumption that
> complete separation is best.  Think what you will of these two poles, at
> least they make a stab at protecting the interest of the end user.  We need
> to do the same.   All this hooey about how it's not fair that one group gets
> to do this, while the other group doesn't, advances us not an inch toward a
> recommendation that will stand any kind of scrutiny.   It will be seen for
> what it has been so far, an accommodation between rival commercial
> interests, nothing but a pie-slicing contest.
> 
> If this group doesn't make at least a defensible attempt to develop policy
> from the perspective of the consumer, its work is highly suspect and, given
> the preponderance of registrars and registries participating, possibly
> anti-competitive.  
> 
> We can do better than this.  First, let's ask the right questions.
> 
> I'll take a stab at it:  what the end user wants is:
> 
> - cheap prices
> - good choice of names
> - good service
> - portability
> - perpetual right of renewal at a predictable price.   
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like it to me.    So which
> vertical integration/separation policy gets us closest to that?
> 
> Antony
> 
> 
> 
>