RE: [registrars] Regarding reselling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary market
- To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Regarding reselling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary market
- From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:16:06 -0500
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcTx+8mQrP+DldQkR6asNLURKfWo/ABLnwnwABnUR9AAGi5TIA==
- Thread-topic: [registrars] Regarding reselling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary market
Our position is that if the GNSO wants to adopt the resolution
authorizing an issues report, the focus of the study should be on the
"slamming" the registries issue and "daughter registrar" issue that the
Business Constituency (BC) has raised as problems below. It should not
encompass individual registrar business practices - products and
services provided to their customers prior to deletion. The
post-deletion contention issue and explosion in new registrars are the
only related issues that address the concerns raised in the BC draft
resolution (i.e. "impacts stability" or causes "unforeseen strains on
the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business
efficiently."). This is the same approach ICANN and the RC took with
the Workshop on Re-registration of Deleted Domain Names held in Cape
Town. I've copied the workshop overview below.
Jonathon L. Nevett
13200 Woodland Park Road
Herndon, Virginia 20171
Registrar Constituency Workshop: Announcement and Call for Papers
Jointly sponsored by the Registrar Constituency and ICANN to develop
solutions to the contention for domain names made available by a gTLD
registry (i.e., the deleted names or batch pool market).
1 Dec 2004, 14:00 - 16:00.
ICANN Meeting, Cape Town, South Africa, room to be announced.
Due date for papers:
24 Nov 2004
When a domain name is cancelled, the registry releases the domain name
for re-registration following a redemption grace period and a notice
period of pending delete. In many cases there is more than one entity
that wishes to re-register the domain. The time at which a particular
domain name will be available for re-registration is known to
registrars. This causes contention at the registry, with many registrars
sending add commands to seek to register the name at the same time. This
process is an inefficient use of both registry and registrar resources.
This problem has been most noticeable for the com/net registry due to
its large volume of names, but may equally apply to other registries as
the number of names under management grows.
The purpose of the workshop is to receive industry input on possible
long-term solutions to the contention problem. This discussion is also
timely because the contention problem also applies at the time a new TLD
is created, and a new set of domain names becomes available for
registration. Therefore, the workshop results and ensuing steps will
become part of the process for introducing new TLDs.
The workshop will not discuss the various mechanisms introduced by some
registrars for re-allocating registered domain names after expiry to
different registrants, and the workshop will not discuss the proposed
WLS service. Although these mechanisms may limit the number of names
that are made available for re-registration, domain names will still be
released by the registry for re-registration, and thus the contention
problem will still exist.
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:49 PM
Subject: [registrars] Regarding reselling of valuable deleted domain
names in a secondary market
Please note that the business constituency has tabled the following
motion for the GNSO Council meeting on 13 Jan 2005.
I welcome any feedback/comments from members of the constituency.
Registrars rep on the GNSO Council
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 6 January 2005 12:49 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Subject: Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005
Bruce, would you be kind enough to table this resolution for the 13
January Council meeting on behalf of the BC?
Issue - Re-selling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary
The typical model for selling deleted TLDs is first-come first-served
and this works well for ordinary names where the profit to registries
and registrars is small and similar. But it does not work for special
names where the domain name equity is much higher, either because the
name has perceived value, or there is a desirable level of associated
traffic with the name. A secondary market has grown up to remarket the
names. Some names are bought for speculative resell; others because they
have traffic still active and are resold to redirect the traffic to
other, sometimes undesirable, sites. This market has created a new
business opportunity for registrars and a problem for the registries.
Certain registrars are "slaming" the registries with automated requests
for desirable names. Because the present system provides equal access to
all registrars, some registrars have created new ICANN accredited
daughter registrars whose sole purpose is to request deleted names -
thus increasing the chance for the parent registrar to get desirable
names. This massive set of requests is affecting the ability of the
registrars to manage their existing bona fide business efficiently. This
impacts on stability. The implication of these new types of ICANN
accredited registrars needs to be assessed.
Council needs to investigate the issue fully and so should consider the
need for a PDP with a request for ICANN staff to write an issues report.
Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to
unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage
their business efficiently,
Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning
of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars,
to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as
specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of
valuable deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that
Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be
PS I am open to friendly amendments to improve the wording of the
resolution should this help clarity.