Re: [gnso-whois-wg] A few questions

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Please don't be ridiculous Danny. You know very well that the OPOC 
proposal was a compromise position crafted to ensure that some balance 
between the privacy rights of individuals could be balanced with the 
demands for access put forward by the IP community. Cost was never an 
issue until the IP community went completely overboard with this latest 
round of demands. If implemented, administering this policy will cost 
more than the actual registrations themselves. The registrar community 
didn't propose the reveal function - this was completely a byproduct of 
the IP community and this working group.

You are correct, the cure is more onerous than the disease. I've been 
asking for an explanation of this from almost the very start of this 
working group, but answers have been few and far between in return.

From my perspective, I see three real options -

a) implement a realistic version of the OPOC proposal - the one council 
voted on in Lisbon (having the support of the majority of the GNSO I 
might add) would suffice.

b) scale back these latest impositions to the point that they are 
realistic and implementable. Unlikely given how strident the IP 
community has become in pushing this issue.

c) do nothing and be satisified with registrars and registries providing 
whois services and relying on prevailing legislation to govern the 
scope, form and function.


Danny Younger wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Perhaps we should be investigating whether the
> purposes of competition would be served by having all
> registries become "thick" registries so that they all
> would have access to the data "no longer available for
> unrestricted, public, query-based access", and could
> thereby compete with the registrars for provision of
> the "reveal service"... at least some competition
> might help to keep pricing in check.
>
> I can't help but get the impression that for the
> registrars this OPOC proposal was never about
> supporting the privacy concerns of their registrants,
> but was instead just another way to suck even more
> dollars out of the registrant's pocket.
>
> As it stands now, in the larger scheme of things, it
> sure looks like this "cure" is shaping up to be worse
> than that which ails us. 
>
>
>
> --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I find two wrongful premises' here. One; that any
> > price will be a market price and two; that this is
> > outside the scope of the WG.
> >    
> >   The registrars are already agreeably regulated and
> > limitted in supply by non market forces. So anything
> > they charge would not be market.
> >    
> >   Who bears the burden of a given recommendation is
> > always within scope. Scope is reality not edict.
> >    
> >   Eric
> >
> > Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   Whether or not you agree with icann's polcy of
> > allowing registrars to charge market rates for the
> > services they offer is interesting, but completely
> > ot of scope for this working group. Tha is unless I
> > missed something in my read of our terms of
> > reference. Pricing is a matter of private contract
> > between the registrars, ICANN and in some cases the
> > registries. Those contracts now permit us to charge
> > market rates for the services we offer.
> >
> > Also note that impact assessments are not price
> > regulatory instruments, they aresimply statements of
> > imapct by affected parties which allow the council
> > to more thoroughy understand the net benefit of
> > their policy recoomendations.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Danny Younger" 
> > To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" ; "Doug Isenberg" ;
> > gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: 22/07/07 15:01
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] A few questions
> >
> > Hi Ross,
> >
> > I'm not about to agree to giving registrars a carte
> > blanche to set whatever prices they choose for this
> > service. 
> >
> > As impact assessments must accompany any proposed
> > policy, I see this topic (ongoing registrant abuse
> > by
> > way of onerous registrar fees) as very much in
> > scope.
> >
> > .... and if you don't think that registrar fees are
> > onerous, consider the $260 that some
> > registrars/resellers charge for the Redemption Grace
> > Period fee (that only costs them $40).
> >
> > regards,
> > Danny
> >
> >
> > --- Ross Rader wrote:
> >
> > > Danny Younger wrote:
> > > > (1) For the sake of curiosity, how many billion
> > > > look-ups are now performed monthly? 
> > > >
> > > > (2) Under the OPOC proposal, how many monthly
> > > look-ups
> > > > would be anticipated? 
> > > >
> > > > (3) Multiplying a "nominal fee" times the number
> > > of
> > > > expected look-ups will yield about how many
> > > > million/billion dollars for the registrar
> > > community? 
> > >
> > > When I brought up the issue of fees, I did not use
> > > the term "cost 
> > > recovery" (although Tom has). Consistent with
> > > ICANN's recent moves to 
> > > stay out of the pricing game in the registry
> > > business, and their 
> > > consistent position that registrar level pricing
> > be
> > > set by market 
> > > forces, I see no reason why the provision of these
> > > services should be 
> > > different. This working group is proposing a new
> > set
> > > of services, to 
> > > which each registrar should be permitted to price
> > in
> > > any manner they see 
> > > fit.
> > >
> > > The question of "who gets how much of what" is
> > > entirely irrelevent for 
> > > this working group and vastly over-reaches ICANN's
> > > scope of policy 
> > > making responsibility.
> > >
> > > -ross
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out
> > Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
> > http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >        
> > ---------------------------------
> > Got a little couch potato? 
> > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
>
>
>
>       ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite..asp?a=7 


--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492