Registrants could save lots of money - Verisign Makes the Case
and breadcrumb the money trail..... http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181102_how_much_could_businesses_and_consume... -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
That article is written from the domain name speculator's perspective. And as much as gains on a tiny set of .com name sales captures the writer's (and usually ICANN's attention) it is the other side of the .com registry fee that is of far greater economic impact. In past years I have speculated that the cost to operate the .com registry (including the name server cloud) is on the order of $0.03 per name per year. Using that $0.03 number, ICANN is gifting to Verisign an unearned profit of $7.82 per name per year - which when measured over the number of names in .com amounts to about $1.5BILLION - with a "B" per year in pure profit. Suppose my estimate is off by 10x, i.e. 1000%. Suppose that the cost is $0.30 per name per year. That barely changes the result. It is still a gift from ICANN to Verisign in excess of $1.5BILLION per year. Suppose my estimate is off by 100x - 10,000%. That the cost is $3/name/year. That still results in roughly a $BILLION/year gift from ICANN to Verisign. Now, ICANN has been around for 20 years. From which we can make a very imprecise estimate that ICANN's lack of auditing and concern for the actual cost of providing the .com registry service has amounted to a wealth transfer from internet users to Verisign of perhaps as much as $20BILLION - so far. Now, a rational internet user might wonder if my numbers are accurate or not. It seems, however, that ICANN is not concerned because as far as I know ICANN has never asked for gross numbers, much less performed an audit. We know that Verisign has engaged in various forms of security theatre - such as construction of visually fortress-like data centers - to make it appear to uninformed government administrators and legislators that Versign deserve pallets of cash else Verisign might stumble and collapse the internet. Even if we allow that kind of posturing - those expenses ought to have been depreciated down to zero over the two-plus decades that Verisign has been sitting on .com. So perhaps a few domain name speculators are getting a few tens of thousands - maybe even a couple of $millions - out of buying and selling domain names in .com. That, however, amount to nothing more than grain of sand on the vastly larger beach of money that is ICANN's fiat .com registry fee gift. Did anyone mention .net? Similar story. Compare Versign's registry fee - now approaching $8/name/year with the cost of things like Gmail or Facebook, which are "free". (One may counter that Google and FB obtain revenue from other sources, such as advertising or compiling marketing targeting data on users. But who among us can say with certainty that Verisign is not compiling valuable marketing data from domain name activities or selling useful intelligence data to various governments - maybe they are not, but has ICANN ever inquired?) --karl-- On 11/6/18 1:13 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
and breadcrumb the money trail.....
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181102_how_much_could_businesses_and_consume...
-Carlton
============================== /Carlton A Samuels/ /Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Thank you, Carlton, for sending info on this topic again. As discussed earlier, because of unregulated registrars and large scale speculation, the current price-caps of Verisign do not benefit end-users at all. Of course, there is no doubt that Verisign is speaking for its own commercial interests. However, they are telling the truth, at least this time. As a matter of fact, I do not see ANY justification for the DNS industry's registry-registrar two-layered structure. It is well known that, the more layers, the more overhead. Thus, instead of preventing speculation and protecting end-users, this two-layered structure addes unnecessary overhead ending up higher prices for end-users. Also as discussed earlier, this structure has been in place for a long time, and is even within ICANN's Bylaw. However, if we cannot find an effective way of protecting end-users, there could be ways to do so within the framework of ICANN Bylaws. For example, ICANN could allow registries, e.g., Verisign, to increase there price to registrars by a certain percentage periodically while picking up service obligations to end-users. This will effectively "squeeze out" registrars and eventually merge the two layers into one. Furthermore, this will eventually reach a market equalibrim without speculation or overheads to end-users. Digging even deeper, the question is, who created and owns domain names? In previous discussions, I compared them with land. Land is not created by governments, but by Nature for all mankind. When people want to use land for themselves, initially they follow the rules of "finder, keeper" etc. by claiming ownership. From there on, land can be circulated according to market rules and regulations. In this process, governments merely play the role of a manager to keep land ownerships and usage in order. Similarly, domain names and any character strings are created by languages, just like addresses are created by the numerical system. Only when people want to use them, ownerships will be claimed by registrants. ICANN and the entire DNS industry never created them and do not own them, but only manage them to keep them in order. Fees are collected for their management just like property tax, instead of rent for landlords. As I see, this concept should be established among the DNS industry as well as within ICANN. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlton Samuels To: CPWG ; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org ; At-Large Worldwide Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 5:13 AM Subject: [At-Large] Registrants could save lots of money - Verisign Makesthe Case and breadcrumb the money trail..... http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181102_how_much_could_businesses_and_consume... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Kaili: I have to tell you my own intuitive response when I began caucusing with the At-Large in 2006 was that the domain name system was just another land grab, although virtual this time. I then contextualized it with the historical period we were taught to call 'the Age of Discovery'. [I quoted the Bourbon King of France on hearing of the Treaty of Tordesillas and got an irate private mail from someone who thought my history was wrong.] Think of it, a fella got lost trying for India, came upon a place filled with people minding their own business and had the chutzpah to holler "I found it' and claim it in the name of the sovereign queen! These days it would be properly assessed as a continuing criminal enterprise. So, here's the DNS. ICANN, by fiat, grants title to a registry of every set of characters associated with a defined character set left of a period, those known, out of mind or otherwise, to a registry operator for a fee. And this registry operator can use said grant for commercial extraction, certain rules applied. You want apple.com, yeah, pay Verisign. Ditto extravirgin.com. And - here's the kicker - ICANN would not wish to be seen as a benefactor and so compelled to act as regulator of the first rank in this market. You couldn't make this up as a racket- a perfect one! - and remain at large, pun intended. Just wish I was hip to it before now. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 5:27 AM Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Carlton, for sending info on this topic again.
As discussed earlier, because of unregulated registrars and large scale speculation, the current price-caps of Verisign do not benefit end-users at all. Of course, there is no doubt that Verisign is speaking for its own commercial interests. However, they are telling the truth, at least this time.
As a matter of fact, I do not see ANY justification for the DNS industry's registry-registrar two-layered structure. It is well known that, the more layers, the more overhead. Thus, instead of preventing speculation and protecting end-users, this two-layered structure addes unnecessary overhead ending up higher prices for end-users.
Also as discussed earlier, this structure has been in place for a long time, and is even within ICANN's Bylaw. However, if we cannot find an effective way of protecting end-users, there could be ways to do so within the framework of ICANN Bylaws. For example, ICANN could allow registries, e.g., Verisign, to increase there price to registrars by a certain percentage periodically while picking up service obligations to end-users. This will effectively "squeeze out" registrars and eventually merge the two layers into one. Furthermore, this will eventually reach a market equalibrim without speculation or overheads to end-users.
Digging even deeper, the question is, who created and owns domain names? In previous discussions, I compared them with land. Land is not created by governments, but by Nature for all mankind. When people want to use land for themselves, initially they follow the rules of "finder, keeper" etc. by claiming ownership. From there on, land can be circulated according to market rules and regulations. In this process, governments merely play the role of a manager to keep land ownerships and usage in order.
Similarly, domain names and any character strings are created by languages, just like addresses are created by the numerical system. Only when people want to use them, ownerships will be claimed by registrants. ICANN and the entire DNS industry never created them and do not own them, but only manage them to keep them in order. Fees are collected for their management just like property tax, instead of rent for landlords.
As I see, this concept should be established among the DNS industry as well as within ICANN.
Kaili
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> ; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org ; At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2018 5:13 AM *Subject:* [At-Large] Registrants could save lots of money - Verisign Makesthe Case
and breadcrumb the money trail.....
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181102_how_much_could_businesses_and_consume...
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Carlton, On 17/11/2018 23:28, Carlton Samuels wrote:
You couldn't make this up as a racket- a perfect one! - and remain at large, pun intended. Just wish I was hip to it before now.
I have heard this accusation from ICANN critics for many years and personally do not subscribe to describe it in such a way. However, in recent times, including speaking to Global IGF and UK IGF participants who were not involved in ICANN, it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing. Kindest regards, Olivier
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 00:08, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing.
Hi Olivier, It should be no shock by now that I am neither surprised nor saddened by this trend, and the mistrust is most certainly well-earned. All the times that good people like you and me and Alan and Carlton and numerous others have tried to impart the value of heeding (or even acknowledging) the public interest, only to be ignored or belittled, are finally coming back to bite ICANN on the arse. All of the "who do the GAC think they are" whining has inevitably been interpreted as invitation for governments to remind ICANN who is actually sovereign and who just plays at it. When threatened, ICANN has always played the fear card, warning that the only alternative to its industry capture is government capture. That alarm no longer resonates, as the industry had proven beyond any doubt that it is not only incapable of self-regulation but also incapable of accommodating the mitigating forces that would sustain its legitimacy. Whether the alternative is a multilateral one or individual countries acting on their own, ICANN has no say in that debate, its goodwill long squandered despite the best efforts of At-Large and others. Perhaps, using the only tool that it understands, ICANN should expand the scope of the committee promoting "universal acceptance" ... pleading the case not just for new gTLDs, but also the ICANN that made them. (Meanwhile, the entitlement parade that is the Subsequent Procedues WG rolls on, eager to inflict upon us a new round of TLDs even less wanted than the last one. Nothing is learned. Of COURSE trust is gone.) Cheers, -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56
People are feeling unsafe around the world , normal reaction is “ask for protection” Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 04:14 To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Cc: LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Registrants could save lots of money - Verisign Makesthe Case On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 00:08, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing. Hi Olivier, It should be no shock by now that I am neither surprised nor saddened by this trend, and the mistrust is most certainly well-earned. All the times that good people like you and me and Alan and Carlton and numerous others have tried to impart the value of heeding (or even acknowledging) the public interest, only to be ignored or belittled, are finally coming back to bite ICANN on the arse. All of the "who do the GAC think they are" whining has inevitably been interpreted as invitation for governments to remind ICANN who is actually sovereign and who just plays at it. When threatened, ICANN has always played the fear card, warning that the only alternative to its industry capture is government capture. That alarm no longer resonates, as the industry had proven beyond any doubt that it is not only incapable of self-regulation but also incapable of accommodating the mitigating forces that would sustain its legitimacy. Whether the alternative is a multilateral one or individual countries acting on their own, ICANN has no say in that debate, its goodwill long squandered despite the best efforts of At-Large and others. Perhaps, using the only tool that it understands, ICANN should expand the scope of the committee promoting "universal acceptance" ... pleading the case not just for new gTLDs, but also the ICANN that made them. (Meanwhile, the entitlement parade that is the Subsequent Procedues WG rolls on, eager to inflict upon us a new round of TLDs even less wanted than the last one. Nothing is learned. Of COURSE trust is gone.) Cheers, -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56
But ICANN was never in a position to regulate businesses. It has no local jurisdiction as a public regulator anywhere, even in the US where it is registered as a not for profit corporation in California. ICANN did start out with people arguing to focus on the interests of the network edge by placing users at the core of its remit but it rather quickly dumped that and became an "industry" forum that has been carving up ICANN's access to the root server system and essentially tax users by forcing the world through an intermediary structure of their own design that users have no effective say over. What has amazed me is how relaxed regulators around the world have been to imposition of a tax system on their citizens that has restricted access to DNS (which is a public resource of the Internet) domain names and pushed users into depending on application vendor walled gardens for obtaining name identifiers. Christian Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Carlton,
On 17/11/2018 23:28, Carlton Samuels wrote:
You couldn't make this up as a racket- a perfect one! - and remain at large, pun intended. Just wish I was hip to it before now.
I have heard this accusation from ICANN critics for many years and personally do not subscribe to describe it in such a way. However, in recent times, including speaking to Global IGF and UK IGF participants who were not involved in ICANN, it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Christian de Larrinaga @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel@firsthand.net
In other words, now ICANN is controlled by the DNS industry itself. Thus, it cannot effectively regulate. Unless ICANN undergoes a fundamental restructuring, I do not see a way out of this. On the other hand, people are also skeptical about government regulation, especially from those governments who are not exactly "of the people, by the people, for the people". This seems to leave netizens around the world nowhere. Too bad. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond To: Carlton Samuels Cc: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org ; CPWG ; At-Large Worldwide Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Registrants could save lots of money - Verisign Makesthe Case Dear Carlton, On 17/11/2018 23:28, Carlton Samuels wrote: You couldn't make this up as a racket- a perfect one! - and remain at large, pun intended. Just wish I was hip to it before now. I have heard this accusation from ICANN critics for many years and personally do not subscribe to describe it in such a way. However, in recent times, including speaking to Global IGF and UK IGF participants who were not involved in ICANN, it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing. Kindest regards, Olivier ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Olivier: When Macron framed the European view on IG as opposed to both the "California" and "Chinese models, I read that as the French way of saying a pox on both houses. Then he went on to appropriate much of the NetMundial agenda and made the IGF first among equals of the I* entities, to me the European view is settled: regulation under the multilateral umbrella with Europe and surrogates in defining roles. (Maybe a European Under Sec Gen for IGF). Not surprised at all. The aporoach seems to me simply follow the food chain and pass it thru the folks - registries, registrars and domainers - that depend on ICANN. Match point and game. Best, -Carlton On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 12:08 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com wrote:
Dear Carlton,
On 17/11/2018 23:28, Carlton Samuels wrote:
You couldn't make this up as a racket- a perfect one! - and remain at large, pun intended. Just wish I was hip to it before now.
I have heard this accusation from ICANN critics for many years and personally do not subscribe to describe it in such a way. However, in recent times, including speaking to Global IGF and UK IGF participants who were not involved in ICANN, it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing. Kindest regards,
Olivier
Carlton, My personal opinion is that the situation is more complex. First of all, Macron needed to do something “big” on the international scene to counter the serious domestic drop of popularity. Then, France is not Europe, and the regulatory attitude, although widely spread in Europe, does not make unanimity. When I have heard hi speech - that incidentally exceeded by far the allocated time - my first reaction was: Here it comes again, the French “grandeur”. Looking at the rest of the session, it was quite clear that he took off-guard even his minister. All this to say that, although I agree with some basic lines of thought in your analysis, I would not sign off that this is a match point. Maybe a set point, if you insist, but not the end of the game. Cheers, Roberto On 27.11.2018, at 19:07, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Olivier: When Macron framed the European view on IG as opposed to both the "California" and "Chinese models, I read that as the French way of saying a pox on both houses. Then he went on to appropriate much of the NetMundial agenda and made the IGF first among equals of the I* entities, to me the European view is settled: regulation under the multilateral umbrella with Europe and surrogates in defining roles. (Maybe a European Under Sec Gen for IGF). Not surprised at all. The aporoach seems to me simply follow the food chain and pass it thru the folks - registries, registrars and domainers - that depend on ICANN. Match point and game. Best, -Carlton On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 12:08 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Carlton, On 17/11/2018 23:28, Carlton Samuels wrote: You couldn't make this up as a racket- a perfect one! - and remain at large, pun intended. Just wish I was hip to it before now. I have heard this accusation from ICANN critics for many years and personally do not subscribe to describe it in such a way. However, in recent times, including speaking to Global IGF and UK IGF participants who were not involved in ICANN, it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing. Kindest regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
I think it is time to broaden this discussion to what is going on in the real world of the internet: Please, please listen to this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zWWJ1BzKgI&t=438s <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zWWJ1BzKgI&t=438s> Douglas Gabriel used to work for the NSA and Michael McKibben really did invent Facebook. We all need to understand what is going on and is the best video I know of to make my point. I think there is a much bigger conversation going on than what we know. Perhaps it is time to ask who REALLY is in charge here? Linda
On Nov 27, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Carlton, My personal opinion is that the situation is more complex. First of all, Macron needed to do something “big” on the international scene to counter the serious domestic drop of popularity. Then, France is not Europe, and the regulatory attitude, although widely spread in Europe, does not make unanimity. When I have heard hi speech - that incidentally exceeded by far the allocated time - my first reaction was: Here it comes again, the French “grandeur”. Looking at the rest of the session, it was quite clear that he took off-guard even his minister. All this to say that, although I agree with some basic lines of thought in your analysis, I would not sign off that this is a match point. Maybe a set point, if you insist, but not the end of the game. Cheers, Roberto
On 27.11.2018, at 19:07, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Olivier: When Macron framed the European view on IG as opposed to both the "California" and "Chinese models, I read that as the French way of saying a pox on both houses.
Then he went on to appropriate much of the NetMundial agenda and made the IGF first among equals of the I* entities, to me the European view is settled: regulation under the multilateral umbrella with Europe and surrogates in defining roles. (Maybe a European Under Sec Gen for IGF).
Not surprised at all. The aporoach seems to me simply follow the food chain and pass it thru the folks - registries, registrars and domainers - that depend on ICANN.
Match point and game.
Best, -Carlton
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 12:08 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Carlton,
On 17/11/2018 23:28, Carlton Samuels wrote:
You couldn't make this up as a racket- a perfect one! - and remain at large, pun intended. Just wish I was hip to it before now.
I have heard this accusation from ICANN critics for many years and personally do not subscribe to describe it in such a way. However, in recent times, including speaking to Global IGF and UK IGF participants who were not involved in ICANN, it appears that following President Macron's call for more regulation, many European stakeholders are saying that if ICANN is unable to assume regulation of Registry and Registrar contracts in order to protect consumers, European countries should introduce local legislation to regulate the industry. Sad as it may be, not many people trust ICANN to do anything and more and more consumers consider regulation as a good thing. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Kan Kaili: Thankyou for your analysis and reflections about this. Registry-Registrar separation was 'invented' in the 1990s, to deal with the situation created by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) decision to give Network Solutions Inc. (NSI as it then was) a global monopoly over the <.com> domain, among other the TLDs. That was changed by the US government upon the creation of ICANN. That is why we now have the Verisign Registry as the successor to NSI's Registry Business, and the nowadays multitudinous Registrar industry, accredited by ICANN, including, NSI as a large Registrar.
From the point of view of international competition policy there is still some unfinished business in this area:
- The US Government has retained its contract with Verisign for the <.com> domain, among others, including the Cap on Verisign's prices. Some of us thought that as a result of the IANA Transition, that contract should have been devolved to ICANN. There will be other DNS entities in the future which will dominate parts of the DNS market and which ICANN will have to regulate. - the rationale and effectiveness of Registry-Registrar separation has been fundamentally undermined by the flawed decision in the previous round to allow cross-ownership of multiple Registries by Registrars. That was entirely unnecessary for the success of the previous round. Needless to say that there is more that could be said about this, but not now … Regards CW
El 17 de noviembre de 2018 a las 11:26 Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> escribió:
Thank you, Carlton, for sending info on this topic again.
As discussed earlier, because of unregulated registrars and large scale speculation, the current price-caps of Verisign do not benefit end-users at all. Of course, there is no doubt that Verisign is speaking for its own commercial interests. However, they are telling the truth, at least this time.
As a matter of fact, I do not see ANY justification for the DNS industry's registry-registrar two-layered structure. It is well known that, the more layers, the more overhead. Thus, instead of preventing speculation and protecting end-users, this two-layered structure addes unnecessary overhead ending up higher prices for end-users.
Also as discussed earlier, this structure has been in place for a long time, and is even within ICANN's Bylaw. However, if we cannot find an effective way of protecting end-users, there could be ways to do so within the framework of ICANN Bylaws. For example, ICANN could allow registries, e.g., Verisign, to increase there price to registrars by a certain percentage periodically while picking up service obligations to end-users. This will effectively "squeeze out" registrars and eventually merge the two layers into one. Furthermore, this will eventually reach a market equalibrim without speculation or overheads to end-users.
Digging even deeper, the question is, who created and owns domain names? In previous discussions, I compared them with land. Land is not created by governments, but by Nature for all mankind. When people want to use land for themselves, initially they follow the rules of "finder, keeper" etc. by claiming ownership. From there on, land can be circulated according to market rules and regulations. In this process, governments merely play the role of a manager to keep land ownerships and usage in order.
Similarly, domain names and any character strings are created by languages, just like addresses are created by the numerical system. Only when people want to use them, ownerships will be claimed by registrants. ICANN and the entire DNS industry never created them and do not own them, but only manage them to keep them in order. Fees are collected for their management just like property tax, instead of rent for landlords.
As I see, this concept should be established among the DNS industry as well as within ICANN.
Kaili
> > ----- Original Message -----
From: Carlton Samuels mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com To: CPWG mailto:cpwg@icann.org ; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org ; At-Large Worldwide mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 5:13 AM Subject: [At-Large] Registrants could save lots of money - Verisign Makesthe Case
and breadcrumb the money trail.....
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181102_how_much_could_businesses_and_consume...
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
---------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (10)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Evan Leibovitch -
Kan Kaili -
Karl Auerbach -
Linda Kaiser -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vanda Scartezini