RE: [ga] New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is my own personal post and not an official NeuStar
> position.

Then why do you say a few lines below "Again, it is NeuStar's position...."? :)
 
> Your assertions are incredibly far-fetched especially when
> it relates to
> the Abuse Policy.  In case you did not know, NeuStar has
> had an abuse
> policy since 2006.  See

However, since 2006 Neustar has not had the ability to engage in tiered 
pricing. Obviously if the rules of the game change, the behaviour of the 
players would also change.

> You are so paranoid that we are all out there to mess with your
> business, that you fail to recognize the truth of what is going on.  
 
I see the truth far too clearly. It is the registry operators who demonstrably 
try to shade the truth. Let me remind of your past statements in 2006 when the 
biz/info/org attempted to remove price caps (and lost):

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04293.html

"WHAT LANGUAGE CAN YOU POINT TO IN THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT (WHEN
COMPARING IT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT) THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO THE
HYPOTHETICAL THINGS YOU BELIEVE WE ARE ABLE TO DO.  IN OTHER WORDS, JUST
BECAUSE THERE IS NO MAXIMUM PRICE STATED IN THE AGREEMENT, WHY DO YOU
BELIEVE WE ARE ENTITLED TO CHARGE A DIFFERENT WHOLESALE FEE FOR EACH
REGISTERED DOMAIN NAME?"

You attempted to give folks a false interpretation of the proposed agreement. 
ICANN's counsel (through Vint Cerf) directly confirmed my interpretation that 
if price caps were eliminated, tiered pricing would not be forbidden:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04417.html

That is obviously not what you said back then. The public spoke out against the 
proposed changes with almost 1000 comments:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-tld-agreement/

Having lost that battle, why would you call it "paranoia" when the exact same 
debate is reopened 3 years later, one that would be highly profitable to 
registry operators, at the expense of the public? Recall I challenged you 
directly:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04301.html

"would Neustar agree as a simple matter that the draft contracts be amended to 
forbid differential pricing on a domain-by-domain basis, i.e. to forbid 
.tv-style non-neutral and discriminatory pricing?"

and of course you clammed up (check the archives chronologically, you didn't 
post again for ages.

I'm just a simple person. When I see folks arguing to have certain powers, I 
assume they will use them. Especially when they have the opportunity to sign 
away the rights to those powers, but choose not to. If registry operators want 
to lower prices, caps don't prevent that. Caps only stop them from raising 
prices.

> prices, like .tv)."  Let me ask you a question.  How
> many registrars
> actually delete domain names these days?  Almost all names
> worth any
> value at all are kept by the registrar and auctioned off by
> them (or

Indeed, and what's to stop registry operators from trying to change the rules 
of the game to have a uniform expired domains policy, to capture that for 
themselves?

> some other mechanism taking advantage of the secondary
> market)?  Can you
> give me one example where a registry had actually seized a
> name for
> itself?   

I recall VeriSign implemented something called SiteFinder. When they wildcarded 
dot-com, they took over all unregistered domains, *and* registered domains that 
had no nameservers. They didn't have the gall to change the WHOIS of those 
names to themselves, but they did seize all of the traffic to them. It's 
interesting what can happen when you don't have explicit rules and bulletproof 
contracts, wouldn't you agree?

As for actual thefts of a domain by a registry operator, I believe rogue 
registrars have beaten them to the punch so far. But, give registry operators 
the ability, and the "profit maximization" incentive would give you ample 
examples. Or, let's simply not give them that ability in the first place, and 
leave it a theoretical possibility, shall we?
 
> But let's assume a registry does want to auction off
> legitimately
> expired domains (which by the way is not something NeuStar
> has ever, or
> is now, proposing).  By legitimately expired domains, I
> mean ones where
> the registrant truly intended its expiration.  Why would
> this be a
> problem?  It is not a registrant's rights issue, since
> they did not want
> it anymore.  Does it make it more difficult or expensive
> for speculators
> and domainers...possibly.  Is it any different than a
> registrar
> auctioning off the name? I am really just curious as to why
> you think it
> is a huge issue.

Obviously the expired domains these days are a huge mess. But, it's a very 
simple thing that if you want your contract amended to make more money, you 
need to give something up. You can't simply keep nibbling away at the contracts 
month after month, year after year, always bettering them for yourselves, at 
the expense of other people. That's not a fair bargain. This is what tenders 
avoids completely.
 
> Again, it is NeuStar's position that it is reasonable
> to have price caps
> on renewals of domain names to protect existing
> registrants.  It is also
> NeuStar's position (and contractual right) that all
> registries are
> treated equitably absent substantial justification.  This
> is what we
> signed up for when we were selected to run .BIZ.  This is
> our
> expectation.  We have never asked for more than this and
> frankly just as
> we have to treat all registrars equitably, I see nothing
> wrong with
> expecting the same of ICANN in their dealings with us.

So, let's take this forward --- would you personally, or speaking for Neustar, 
be for a tender process for all gTLD registries, just like Neustar competes in 
tenders for other government and non-government contracts? This is essentially 
the DOJ/NTIA recommendation. So, if they came to Neustar and said that you can 
now bid to operate dot-com (and other gTLDs), with the lowest bidder winning 
for a fixed term, would Neustar be in the game played on a level playing field? 
Consumer benefits would be maximized in the form of lower prices, probably 
below $2/yr per domain for dot-com. There would be fierce competition to win 
the contract, just as Neustar competed and won the .us contract:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2007/Neustar_101907.html

In other words, was NTIA's procedure for procurement of .us registry services 
superior or inferior to ICANN's existing and proposed procedures?

I believe you won't answer this question. :) If you say "NTIA's procedure is 
better" you break with registry constituency solidarity in managing its affairs 
with ICANN. You would be agreeing with me, and you certainly don't want to do 
that.

If on the other hand you say "ICANN's procedure is better", you give ammunition 
to people like me that say "See, registry operators have taken advantage of the 
public through ICANN, and are making more money in that cozy club than they 
would through tenders." It would also be a slap in the face of your NTIA 
masters if you picked this answer.

So, here's your big chance, who has got it right, NTIA with competitive 
procurements (tenders you have participated in and won), or ICANN?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/