Re: [ga] A Windfall for VeriSign?

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Better yet - do nothing.

This has nothing to do with windfall profits, etc. This can't be a 
discussion about what other people put in their pockets. It should be a 
conversation about what is the best way to manage this public resource 
in the interests of the internet community. Giving away a couple of 
domain names at any price tag will do nothing for the community at large 
and shouldn't even be a topic for consideration until we deal with the 
98 million other things on our collective wish list.
-ross

Andy Gardner wrote:
> I thinking the best ideas I've heard so far to avoid unworthy 
> registries/registrars getting windfall auction profits, is to raffle off 
> "a.com" with every owner of a .com domain starting with "a" getting one 
> ticket.
> b.com gets raffled off between all current b*.com owners. etc.
>
> So all these held-back domains go to random new owners who can do what 
> they want with them.
> If the capitalist pigs really want an auction, to support "let the 
> market decide the rightful owner" valuation prinicipals, then that's 
> fine, but if (say) Verisign bags $50 million from those auctions, then 
> the .com user base should share that windfall via a rebate on their reg 
> fees for the year the auction takes place. Verisign should be content 
> with their unnecessary annual reg fee hike.
> So Verisign gets their normal reg fee for those names, ICANN get's it's 
> normal tax, and the windfall is distributed out evenly to the user base.
>
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Karl and I have already sent through preliminary
> > comments to the new forum on potential allocation
> > methods for single-letter and single-digit domain
> > names at the second level in gTLDs.  GA participants
> > should likewise send through comments.
> >
> > If this very bad recommendation winds up being adopted
> > by ICANN, then we'll need to first determine who is
> > entitled to the capital raised by the proposed
> > auctions.   Karl is of the view that Verisign, will
> > garner the lion's share of the proceeds.  This is
> > likely if the New Registry Services Process is
> > invoked.  In conjunction with this approach, the BC
> > has already suggested the release and allocation of
> > single letters in the non sponsored gTLDs via auction
> > to parties with "demonstrated rights".
> >
> > An alternative that hasn't been much discussed (as
> > greed has become everyone's "First Principle") is
> > "First Come First Served", with such domains put out
> > on a normal registration fee basis -- with this
> > approach, VeriSign won't profit from the release of
> > these names (profits instead will be made by the
> > registrants that fairly acquired these names who
> > choose to put them up for sale or auction in the
> > secondary market).
> >
> > The big question therefore is this:  If ICANN adopts
> > the GNSO recommendation, will it automatically result
> > in a windfall for VeriSign?  or will such a windfall
> > be rejected allowing registrants to profit?  or will
> > ICANN find a way to turn this into a windfall for
> > ICANN?
> >
> > As for me, as I stated in my posted comments, I side
> > with John Klensin on the inadvisability of accepting
> > this recommendation.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________ 
> >
> > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
> > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

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