RE: [registrars] EnCirca's response to Verisign

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oops.  I meant to say over-regulated and under-regulated.

Cheers,

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tbarrett
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:44 PM
To: 'Registrars List'
Subject: [registrars] EnCirca's response to Verisign

 Bruce,

I'm intrigued by your comments.  I would be interested in your ideas on what
areas of the RAA you consider to be over-regulated and what areas you
consider are over-regulated.  This would be a great way for registrars to
start discussing possible changes to the RAA with ICANN, Verisign and the
other gtld registries.

In terms of the current remedies proposed by Verisign, here is my response
to Verisign:

=================

From:
Thomas Barrett
President
EnCirca, Inc.
Reading, MA

To:
Rusty Lewis
Executive Vice President
VeriSign Naming and Directory Services

Re: Feedback on use of Batch Pool for Expired Domain Names

Dear Mr. Lewis,

This is EnCirca's response to your September 17, 2004 request for feedback
on remedies for managing issues related to the Verisign Batch Pool.

EnCirca was formed in December, 2001.  Our customer base consists of
trademark owners, small businesses and individuals.  Late in 2002, we
started to participate in the batch pool process, which we have outsourced
to one of the service providers in the industry.  As a smaller registrar,
participating in the batch pool provides both a new revenue stream as well
as a source of new customers.  This revenue stream also helps ensure EnCirca
keeps current with the introduction of new registry services.  

We would urge Verisign to avoid implementing any new policies that provide
greater Batch Pool capacity to registrars based on their installed base of
domains or overall transaction volume with Verisign.  This would
disadvantage new and smaller registrars, the source of much new innovation
in the domain name industry.

Your proposed remedies would appear to violate one of Verisign's agreed-to
obligations in the RAA: That is, ensuring equal access to all registrars,
regardless of size or volume activity with the registry.

Furthermore, in paragraph 7 of your letter, you state that "we believe that
the kinds of abuses we are seeing are prohibited under various provisions of
the RRA. The RRA contains important restrictions, prohibitions and
limitations on Registrars' access and use the Shared Registration System,
Registry-Registrar Protocol and other VeriSign intellectual property rights
which preclude the kind of activity outlined above."

We appreciate Verisign's concern regarding the RAA.  It forms the basis of
the business relationship between Verisign-GRS and the Registrar community.
How Verisign reacts to this contractual breach is fundamental to the
long-term business relationship Verisign will have with its Registrars.

EnCirca would urge that Verisign immediately address the violations of the
RAA that it considers is the root cause of these problems.  Enforcing the
Registrar obligations in the RAA would lead to greater clarity on the mutual
obligations in the RAA.  It would also lead to desired and appropriate
Registrar business practices and strengthen Verisign's relationship with the
Registrar community, benefiting all parties involved.

While it addresses these RAA violations by Registrars, we would urge that
Verisign continue to honor its side of the RAA - in particular; continue to
be steadfast in ensuring and maintaining the equal access principle for all
registrars, regardless of size or volume activity with the registry.

Respectfully Yours,

Thomas Barrett
President
EnCirca, Inc.




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:35 AM
To: Registrars List
Subject: [registrars] Drop in service as number of registrars increases -
time to change the regulatory model

Hello All,


> 3) On July 27th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 30 to 20 
> per Registrar.
> 
> 4) On August 20th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 20 to 
> 10 per Registrar.
> 

There is clearly something wrong with the current regulatory model, where as
new industry participants are added, the wholesale supplier reduces service
to the existing industry participants that have built substantial businesses
over a period of time.

What would happen, if as new internet service providers (ISPs) were added,
the major telcos reduced the bandwidth available for the existing
well established ISPs?    Or every time a new airline wanted to access
an airport, it was given the same number of landing slots and airline gates
as the other established airlines (with a drop in service for each existing
airline)?

There are two quite separate problems here that are being lumped together.

(1) a method to resolve contention when many registrars want to get the
same name at the same time   (subject of a separate email)

(2) a regulatory model that provides all registrars with an equal amount of
bandwidth at the same price, regardless of the size of their operations

The regulatory model should allow equitable access of resources to
registrars, so that all registrars can offer an equivalent level of service
to their customers.  Right now a new entrant with a few customers, can
provide a much higher level of service, than an established industry player
with many customers.  In regulated telecommunications industries, generally
a maximum price is set to allow new entrants to purchase bandwidth equitably
(although large customers can get bulk discounts), and different industry
participants get enough upstream capacity to meet the needs of their
customers.

The original regulatory model was appropriate at a time of less than 50
registrars, and when there was one registrar with substantial market
dominance.  The market is now much different.  There is no single dominant
registrar (although the top 10 account for around two thirds of
the market), and there are over 300 registrars.   This would mean that
most of these 300 registrars would account for less than 0.1% of the
market.   Thus the regulatory model needs to mature to scale for a
market with potentially thousands of small registrars, and a small number of
larger providers.  This is not dissimilar to the ISP market in most
countries.

Given that ICANN is considering new tlds, and re-considering the registry
agreements that will govern these TLDs - now is the time to decide
strategically where we are headed.  Right now I think some parts of a
registry's operations are over-regulated, and other parts are
under-regulated. 

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:35 AM
To: Registrars List
Subject: [registrars] Drop in service as number of registrars increases -
time to change the regulatory model

Hello All,


> 3) On July 27th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 30 to 20 
> per Registrar.
> 
> 4) On August 20th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 20 to 
> 10 per Registrar.
> 

There is clearly something wrong with the current regulatory model, where as
new industry participants are added, the wholesale supplier reduces service
to the existing industry participants that have built substantial businesses
over a period of time.

What would happen, if as new internet service providers (ISPs) were added,
the major telcos reduced the bandwidth available for the existing
well established ISPs?    Or every time a new airline wanted to access
an airport, it was given the same number of landing slots and airline gates
as the other established airlines (with a drop in service for each existing
airline)?

There are two quite separate problems here that are being lumped together.

(1) a method to resolve contention when many registrars want to get the
same name at the same time   (subject of a separate email)

(2) a regulatory model that provides all registrars with an equal amount of
bandwidth at the same price, regardless of the size of their operations

The regulatory model should allow equitable access of resources to
registrars, so that all registrars can offer an equivalent level of service
to their customers.  Right now a new entrant with a few customers, can
provide a much higher level of service, than an established industry player
with many customers.  In regulated telecommunications industries, generally
a maximum price is set to allow new entrants to purchase bandwidth equitably
(although large customers can get bulk discounts), and different industry
participants get enough upstream capacity to meet the needs of their
customers.

The original regulatory model was appropriate at a time of less than 50
registrars, and when there was one registrar with substantial market
dominance.  The market is now much different.  There is no single dominant
registrar (although the top 10 account for around two thirds of
the market), and there are over 300 registrars.   This would mean that
most of these 300 registrars would account for less than 0.1% of the
market.   Thus the regulatory model needs to mature to scale for a
market with potentially thousands of small registrars, and a small number of
larger providers.  This is not dissimilar to the ISP market in most
countries.

Given that ICANN is considering new tlds, and re-considering the registry
agreements that will govern these TLDs - now is the time to decide
strategically where we are headed.  Right now I think some parts of a
registry's operations are over-regulated, and other parts are
under-regulated. 

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin