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@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:00 AM Subject: NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 50, Issue 1 To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: 30 Nov 2010 14:39:37 -0500 From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated To: "Bob Bruen" <naralo@coldrain.net> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011301434360.35277@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@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@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated To: Bob Bruen <naralo@coldrain.net> Cc: discuss@lists.isoc-ny.org, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Message-ID: <AANLkTikb-aHjfvL3pb333=W-=sMAdxvj98vPiQmXXvqG@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 30 November 2010 11:48, Bob Bruen <naralo@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@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated To: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Message-ID: <289359.64783.qm@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.