Re: [ga] 467 Registrars

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Most of these "shell" companies are set up to 'game' the expiring domain
market.

I'm willing to bet that there are at least 100 and probably many more that
are owned/operated by one particular business (Pool.com).

There are probably the same number again that exist to 'game' the same
market for one or two other businesses.

Now consider what could happen when (for example) .eu launches, if it
decides to run a round-robin process, and asks each accredited registrar to
submit a list of applications for the new domain names.

Does this mean that some long-established registrars who offer a wide range
of services to the Internet community will get: the right to submit ONE
list?

Meanwhile the business entity behind 150 'shell' registrars will find that
their one business has the right to submit 150 lists?

So the whole market gets skewed.

You can imagine the fun and games the executives behind Pool could have in
this scenario if they wanted! TEN lists exclusively submitted on behalf of
the families of each executive (short lists of course, to game the system
and secure the very best domains). Then there will still be 140 more lists
to play with. So let's offer TEN lists for suckers who pay a very cheap
price to 'reserve' a domain, but don't realise that the cheapness will make
the list longer and therefore less likely to grab a domain in the early
rounds. Then let's use TEN lists and charge wealthy customers $5000 per
request, which will result in very short lists of requests, thereby
increasing their chances of getting their domain in the first few rounds of
the round-robin. Then let's use TEN lists to offer really rich dudes the
chance to pay $20,000 per domain, so their domain request is guaranteed to
be the *only* request submitted so they are guaranteed that their name gets
submitted in the very first round of the round robin. That will still leave
Pool executives with another 100 lists they can submit, while poor old
Schlund or whoever just gets ONE list all along.

Now the .eu registry may opt NOT to implement a round-robin approach such as
that used in the .biz2B and the .info landrush 2. They would certainly be
well-advised to consider the implications of these hundreds of 'shell'
registrars before agreeing to such a process.

But the point I'm making is that ICANN has simply allowed their
'accreditation' system to be exploited (and it is exploited every single
day) to the disadvantage of those registrars which are simply trying to get
on with their business and are not out to hijack one corner of the market by
exploiting ICANN's laissez-faire attitude to it all.

I accept that exploiting flaws in the market is a normal part of competitive
trading. However, ICANN is supposed to guarantee the "fair distribution" of
the DNS and their own system has forced consumers to depend on the vagaries
of two or three companies that can exploit them (through blind auctions etc)
and because their "shell" registrars have cornered most of the expiring
domains market, actual consumer choice has been diminished by ICANN's
accreditation process.

It is a situation which has been allowed to get out of hand. ICANN seems to
have sat back and done nothing.

The whole issue of (a) expiring domains; and (b) accreditation rules and
conditions; needs to be reviewed. Added to this, a registrars' Code of
Conduct should be introduced to protect consumers and guarantee fair
trading, with loss of accreditation available as a sanction if such a code
is broken.

Yrs,

Richard H

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Gardner" <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] 467 Registrars


>
> On Mar 14, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > FYI:
> >
> > Tim Cole, ICANN Chief Registrar Liaison writes: "The count of
> > accredited registrars today stands at 467, which is about 75 more than
> > we had when I wrote in January. I thought you might find this
> > information useful."
> >  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg02772.html
> >
> > ... and how many are just shell corporations created by registrars
> > solely to game the ICANN process?
> >
> >
>
> Does the correct answer win a prize?
>
> I say 400 shells.
>
>
>