Re: [ga] New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all,

  Thanks for the useful and rightful effort.  But as has been the history
of NeuStar for continuing to engage in circular arguments, a well known
tactic to deflect reality and reasonableness, your effort however well
stated or intentioned will not make much difference in the entrenched
fallacious positions of registries such as NueStar or Afilias as well as
Registrars such as GoDaddy, ect.  ICANN is also unwilling for obvious
monetary reasons to consider or demand accountability from it's Registries
that are it's largest financial contributors in terms of fees to take the 
obvious
corrective action accordingly.

  It's also very unfortunate as well as questionably ethical that neither
the DOJ or DOC/NTIA is willing to instruct ICANN to take specific
and direct action vis a vi NeuStar or Afilias in this respect, but perhaps
that is due to the fact the in NeuStar's case, they manage still .US for
uncle sam, who's getting ripped off on a number of levels.  I hope
the the new administration and AG Holder will take a personal look
into the activities to which have been raging now for years with NeuStar
and Afilias, as well as GoDaddy to ensure that the consumer/public/users
and registrants are being well and properly served.

George Kirikos wrote:

> 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/

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827