On 4 Apr 2012, at 16:24, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The concern from my side isn't the revenue issue, but why these registrars are not being kept to the same public disclosure requirements (etc) as others simply because they haven't registered a domain yet.
As I said in an earlier post, the issue is not whether they have registered a domain "yet", but whether they are in the business of registering domains and how. Posting policies and such on the web is only required if you do business that way. For instance, I have not checked, but I suspect that Mark Monitor, a large registrar dealing with corporate customers probably does not offer online registration and if so, is not required to post details (or even have a web site if they chose). Having a Whois service is moot if there are no domains to look up at all. On 4 Apr 2012, Garth Bruen wrote:
So what is that "business model" exactly. Folks on this forum don't know the details. Thanks
As Volker implied, it has to do with "drop-catching. More accreditations means more simultaneous attempts to pick up deleted names for resale or monetization. See my earlier post - http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2012-April/005553.html. If you haven't read it, take a look at David Kesmodel's book The Domain Game: How people Get Rich from Internet Domain Names. It is 4 years old and therefore surely out of date, but interesting reading nonetheless. Alan