FW: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I mistakenly hit "reply" instead of "reply to all" so I am forwarding
this to the ga list now.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck 
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:39 PM
> To: 'Karl Auerbach'
> Subject: RE: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if 
> left uncapped
> 
> Thanks for the response Karl.  Please note my additional 
> comments below.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> VeriSign Information Services
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 2:39 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if 
> > left uncapped
> > 
> > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 
> > > I disagree with you that "the internet user has no 
> > effective voice in
> > > ICANN".  In my humble opinion, I think they have a very 
> > effective voice
> > > through their buying choices.
> > 
> > Which is more powerful a position to affect policy:
> > 
> >    - A member on a board of directors
> >    - A person who buys domain names
> > 
> > Between these two, the difference in power to affect the 
> > development and 
> > imposition of policy is different to a degree that even the word 
> > "qualitative" is inadequate to describe the difference.
> 
> No argument from me on this.  The real challenge as you as 
> you discuss somewhat below is to select directors that truly 
> do represent a broad sector of users.  Of course the same 
> issue of representativeness relates to the GNSO Council as 
> Danny pointed out in one of his responses to this thread.
> 
> > 
> > If the way that members of the public affect ICANN policy 
> is by their 
> > buying decisions, and if that is good enough for the public, 
> > then why is 
> > it also not good enough for registries, registrars, business 
> > interests, 
> > ISP, intellectual property bodies, and non-commercial organizations?
> 
> In my own personal opinion, it is good enough.  That was 
> essentially part of my point.  If the public, businesses, 
> non-commercial organizations, etc. are given enough 
> meaningful choices in the selection of TLDs, then registries 
> and registrars will need to adjust their business behavior 
> according to the buying choices of registrants and other 
> users or their success will be reduced.  But excessive 
> regulation of gTLD businesses has not contributed to creating 
> real choices; instead it has lead to too much similarity in 
> different TLDs especially at the gTLD level.  And I am not 
> just talking about choices in TLD string and price but also 
> about policies, service levels, etc.
> 
> > 
> > What we have is an ICANN oligarchy that adheres to the old 
> line that 
> > "What's good for business is good for the consumer."
> > 
> >    Certainly in the past that was not the
> > > case because there were not many choices, but that has changed
> > > considerably and hopefully will change even more going forward.
> > 
> > I really don't think we have real choices.  ICANN has 
> > mandated that the 
> > products offered by the domain name industry vary only in 
> very small 
> > details.
> 
> As you can probably tell from my comments above, you and I 
> are essentially agreeing on this point.  That is why I 
> suggested in my previous message that one of the best things 
> that can happen in ICANN is to expand the choices available 
> to users.  And I will go further and suggest that those 
> choices should become increasingly diverse and not simply new 
> versions of the same thing.  BTW, I personally believe that 
> ICANN, in its latest registry agreements is moving in this 
> direction and I am hopeful that the recommendations from the 
> New gTLD PDP will encourage even more movement in that 
> regard.  I am certainly trying to contribute to that goal myself.
> 
> >  The variation that exists is in the way that 
> > registrars wrap 
> > this standard product with registrar services or bundle it 
> with other 
> > registrar products (such as SSL certificates or web hosting.)
> > 
> > Consider, for example, how different domain name products 
> could be if 
> > ICANN were to permit real competition - my .ewe registry being an 
> > example: http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html
> > 
> > Under ICANN the domain name product offering is very much 
> like Henry 
> > Ford's statement that we can have it any way we want it as 
> long as it 
> > has been approved by ICANN - a integer number of years 
> > between 1 and 10 
> > (why not 25 or 50?), all sales via a system of registrars, 
> mandatory 
> > agreement to a private law (the UDRP), mandatory violation 
> of privacy 
> > (whois), etc.
> > 
> > > I have been one of those who have always supported user 
> > representation
> > > in ICANN policy making processes and I still believe it's 
> > all about the
> > > users, but I have come to the conclusion that it may be 
> > impossible to
> > > ever adequately represent users.
> > 
> > I know that you personally have always been supportive.  I 
> > always hold 
> > your opinion in high regard and know you to be among the most 
> > receptive 
> > and intelligent of members of the ICANN community.
> > 
> > Yet the fact that I, or any other person, can have a real 
> exchange of 
> > ideas with you does not particularly change the fact that 
> > your position 
> > in ICANN is substantially more empowered than that of any 
> particular 
> > member of the public or even the public en mass.
> > 
> > Wd got off to a good start in year 2000.  We had a real 
> election for 
> > ICANN board seats.  There were user organized web 
> discussion sites - 
> > much better than the ALAC even aspires to.  And there were 
> > real debates, 
> > both online and offline - for example here in the US we had 
> > face-to-face 
> > debates at both Harvard and Stanford.  And, again using the 
> US, there 
> > were seven candidates - any one of whom would have been a 
> > good board member.
> > 
> > That election did not fail (even though ICANN demonstrated a rather 
> > amazing degree of technical incompetency and there were those 
> > who tried 
> > to undermine it.)
> 
> I am one of those who never thought it failed.
> 
> > 
> > But since ICANN's inner circle (and there is one, or was, at 
> > least when 
> > I was on the board) didn't like either the European or 
> North American 
> > choices, the "reform" simply erased what was a proven viable 
> > system and 
> > replaced it with the ALAC, which can best be described as a 
> > spectacular dud.
> > 
> > > I strongly believe that, aside from ensuring security and 
> stability
> > 
> > I haven't seen ICANN actually doing that.  I have not seen 
> > that ICANN is 
> > watching and ensuring that DNS queries quickly and accurately 
> > get turned 
> > into DNS replies 24x7x365 and without prejudice for or 
> > against any query 
> > source or query content.  Yet that was ICANN's purpose.
> > 
> > And if ICANN is not doing that watching and ensuring, then who is?
> 
> I think there are lots of players doing that: the root-server 
> operators; the RIRs; the registries; etc.  I know for a fact 
> that VeriSign has contributed a lot in this regard in both 
> the root and com/net constellations.  And I would also say 
> that I believe ICANN has played a role in facilitating some of this.
>  
> > 
> > What ICANN has done, is to treat the business side of DNS as its 
> > bailiwick.  But that has about as much to do with stability 
> > of DNS query 
> > processing as the ticket counter of an airline has to do with 
> > the safe 
> > maintenance and flying of the aircraft.
> > 
> > In most countries, the kind of making of a marketplace, the 
> > definition 
> > of products in that marketplace, the setting of prices, and the 
> > exclusion of potential competitors has been considered a 
> > combination in 
> > restraint of trade.  I am wondering how long, after NTIA 
> > lifts its hand 
> > from ICANN, that people start asking whether the ICANN 
> combination is 
> > one that is legal or not.
> > 
> > Given that the ICANN registry fee - set without regard to the 
> > registry 
> > cost - is sucking perhaps as much as $300,000,000 per year 
> > out of domain 
> > name users each year (that's in .com alone), the question is 
> > rather more 
> > than merely academic.
> > 
> > 		--karl--
> > 
> > 
>