[lac-discuss-en] Fwd: More on the Fastrack PDP inre Domain Name Speculation from NARALO

[Carlton Samuels]

These are some very interesting - and compelling arguments - from Evan and
Danny here.
Might be helpful/useful for LACRALO to see/track the arguments as they
develop and discuss.



Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Date: Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:00 AM
Subject: NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 50, Issue 1
To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: 30 Nov 2010 14:39:37 -0500
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated
To: "Bob Bruen" <naralo at coldrain.net>
Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011301434360.35277 at joyce.lan>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

> IMHO, registrars should not be allowed to create an artificial scarcity to
> drive up prices on the commodities they control. If a user wants to buy
them
> up in a speculation venture, that is a different situation entirely.

Honestly, I don't see the practical difference.  There's no way to avoid
having auctions for the good domain names.   The only question is who gets
to keep the money.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:53:24 -0500
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated
To: Bob Bruen <naralo at coldrain.net>
Cc: discuss at lists.isoc-ny.org, na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Message-ID:
       <AANLkTikb-aHjfvL3pb333=W-=sMAdxvj98vPiQmXXvqG at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 30 November 2010 11:48, Bob Bruen <naralo at coldrain.net> wrote:


> In my opinion, there is an inherent tension between any business and the
> public interest.


I'd say that it often exists, but this dynamic is not "inherent" beyond the
tension involved in buyers wanting lowest-possible prices and sellers
wanting highest-possible.
If a transaction between business and consumer satisfies both, there is
little tension.


> In the case that Danny pointed out, the registrar has an unfair advantage,
> because they are the registrar. In a normal business situation, a business
> sells a good or service based on market pressures, which determines
pricing.
> In a monopoly, the price is determined by the monopoly holder, clearly an
> unfair advantage and the reason why monopolies are controlled by
> governments.
>

Agreed so far. But the monopolies in domain space are purely artificial.
Unlike real estate, the available namespace could increase massively
overnight, if the floodgates for TLD applicants opened tomorrow. I would
make barriers to creating a TLD lower than are being proposed.

I really don't care who is doing the hoarding, whether it's registry,
registrar or end-user domainer. To me, that's a turf war between rival gangs
and I don't care who gets bloodied more when they fight. The end-user, and
the registrants who actually want to put domains to use, are the only real
targets of any "unfairness", and domainers are as much a part of the problem
as any contracted party. I don't see domainers as any more or less ethical
than registries or registrars; it's the hoarding itself that I oppose.

IMO, the Internet domain should be subject to use-it-or-lose-it regulations,
using concepts already applied globbally to that other identify-based
concept of property, the trademark. If I had my own way, registrants would
have a certain amount of time to provide original content under their domain
or it would go back into the 'available' pool. (And by "original content" I
don't mean that embarrassment of the Internet known as the "park page".) A
domain with original content behind it could be resold but not one that was
unused, went to a park page, or "under construction".

I want to see lots more TLDs -- and if I had my way I'd have ICANN do a
publicity campaign to promote the diversity of TLDs, and by inference get
the public away from the notion that there's a "default" TLD that everyone
should aspire to have.

To me, this -- elimination the of TLD scarcity, combined with the reduction
in fears against using a TLD that's not .COM or one's own CC -- is the best
way to deal with domain hoarding. Drop the bottom out of the market and make
speculation too risky for all but the most sure-thing sellers. If a registry
and/or registrars conspire to create scarcity in a TLD, have enough
alternative TLDs available so that nobody will be hurt by that one
particular scarcity. And combine that with tough regulations on renewal
behavior and pricing.

Just my two cents with an admittedly minority stance. Maybe that publicity
campaign is doable, at least.

- Evan


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:15:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated
To: "na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
       <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>,   Alan Greenberg
       <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <289359.64783.qm at web110103.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

If you'll bear with me, I'd like to continue this discussion just a bit more
before I reply individually to the comments and questions that have been put
forth so far on this topic.

I was fortunate enough to have been a participant in the Washington DC GNSO
session that first gave rise to the principles governing the new gTLD
process, and as high-level principles should be guiding all of our actions
in this matter allow me to call your attention to the very first principle
that was articulated by the GNSO:

"New generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must be introduced in an orderly,
timely and predictable way."

An orderly introduction is vital because admittedly ICANN has had serious
problems in the past with earlier gTLD rollouts... and if major problems
emerged in what amounted to a very limited rollout, then just imagine what
could well happen in a rollout of 200 to 500 TLDs.

A brief bit of history:

As Miriam Sapiro of Summit Strategies noted in her report on the earlier
proof-of-concept-TLDs, "the lack of any screening or verification in the
.info Sunrise period led to serious abuses, including an unusually high
number (43%) of registrations that had to be cancelled or transferred."? In
that earlier episode a total of 15,172 cases needed to be acted upon by WIPO
between December 26, 2001 and August 26, 2002 -- this due to the fact that
insufficient scrutiny allowed for an ICANN-Afilias Registry Agreement to be
drafted that did not require Afilias to examine the validity of Sunrise
registrations.

Insufficient scrutiny, the failure to examine all possible loopholes that
might be amenable to gaming, is that which allows disaster to happen.? If an
opportunity can be exploited, we have learned that it most assuredly will be
exploited.

So, now we need to ask ourselves if the first policy principle articulated
by the GNSO is sufficient to deal with the potential host of problems that
might emerge... or if that first principle needs to be bolstered with
additional policy constructs (so that ICANN staff can have a better set of
tools with which to implement/actualize the principle).

Can we, in fact, have an orderly and predictable rollout in an environment
where no policy on domain name speculation by registrars exists and wherein
new cross-ownership?circumstances might indeed occasion misbehaviors??
Perhaps...

If Staff (in its role as the organization's policy-implementor) pays heed to
the recent Board call for "additional enforcement mechanisms", and actually
produces mechanisms designed to stave off the type of abuses that we have
recently seen, then maybe the GNSO's first principle will be sufficient
without the need for additional policy guidance.

Unfortunately, however, no such additional mechanisms nor graduated
sanctions (also called for by the Board) have appeared in the latest version
of the DAG -- so we can't be certain that we can actually trust the ICANN
Staff to do the right thing for the community.? The at-large might want to
have further conversations with ICANN Staff on this point in Cartagena (as
policy implementation is supposed to be their baliwick).

What we do know for a certainty is the current philosophy of the ICANN Board
on this topic.? In their latest resolution they stated:? "ICANN will have
the ability to address possible abuses that may arise out of
registry-registrar cross-ownership through the consensus policy process."

... and therein lies our best solution.

Rather than crafting a policy on the topic of registrar domain name
speculation in the form of an "amendment" to the RAA or as part of a
"revised" RAA (which might not be adopted by many registrars until their
next renewal cycle some four-to-five years hence), we need to think in terms
of drafting the policy as a "consensus policy" initiative which upon
adoption by the Board necessarily goes into immediate effect.

I understand that some might wonder if it's even possible to arrive at a
consensus policy formulation in the face of probable opposition by the
registrar community.? By way of reminder, consensus is not the same as
unanimity.? If the remainder of the community agrees that a policy is
warranted, then such a policy may indeed go into effect over the objections
of a self-interested party.?

With that said, we are facing a future in which ICANN has publicly committed
through its Affirmation "that as it contemplates expanding the top-level
domain space, the various issues that are involved will be adequately
addressed prior to implementation".  We have together recognized an issue
that has impacted a ccTLD launch and which could equally impact future gTLD
launches, and now we have a duty as members of the ICANN community to see to
it that it is "adequately addressed".?

While several options may be put forth ranging from enhanced Staff
implementation efforts to participation in the GNSO's RAA amendment/revision
process, we are likely best served by utilizing the tools at our disposal
that allow us to place an "issue" in the hands of the GNSO:

"An Advisory Committee may raise an issue for policy development by action
of such committee to commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to
the GNSO Council."

If we can narrowly frame the issue and provide short and succinct policy
guidance in our request, then I believe that the Policy Development Process
can move forward on an expedited or fast-track basis.

I look forward to seeing the ALAC once again standing up to defend the user
interest, and I look forward to just a bit more discussion to better scope
the way forward.