Drop in service as number of registrars increases - time to change the regulatory model
Hello All,
3) On July 27th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 30 to 20 per Registrar.
4) On August 20th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 20 to 10 per Registrar.
There is clearly something wrong with the current regulatory model, where as new industry participants are added, the wholesale supplier reduces service to the existing industry participants that have built substantial businesses over a period of time. What would happen, if as new internet service providers (ISPs) were added, the major telcos reduced the bandwidth available for the existing well established ISPs? Or every time a new airline wanted to access an airport, it was given the same number of landing slots and airline gates as the other established airlines (with a drop in service for each existing airline)? There are two quite separate problems here that are being lumped together. (1) a method to resolve contention when many registrars want to get the same name at the same time (subject of a separate email) (2) a regulatory model that provides all registrars with an equal amount of bandwidth at the same price, regardless of the size of their operations The regulatory model should allow equitable access of resources to registrars, so that all registrars can offer an equivalent level of service to their customers. Right now a new entrant with a few customers, can provide a much higher level of service, than an established industry player with many customers. In regulated telecommunications industries, generally a maximum price is set to allow new entrants to purchase bandwidth equitably (although large customers can get bulk discounts), and different industry participants get enough upstream capacity to meet the needs of their customers. The original regulatory model was appropriate at a time of less than 50 registrars, and when there was one registrar with substantial market dominance. The market is now much different. There is no single dominant registrar (although the top 10 account for around two thirds of the market), and there are over 300 registrars. This would mean that most of these 300 registrars would account for less than 0.1% of the market. Thus the regulatory model needs to mature to scale for a market with potentially thousands of small registrars, and a small number of larger providers. This is not dissimilar to the ISP market in most countries. Given that ICANN is considering new tlds, and re-considering the registry agreements that will govern these TLDs - now is the time to decide strategically where we are headed. Right now I think some parts of a registry's operations are over-regulated, and other parts are under-regulated. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, I'm intrigued by your comments. I would be interested in your ideas on what areas of the RAA you consider to be over-regulated and what areas you consider are over-regulated. This would be a great way for registrars to start discussing possible changes to the RAA with ICANN, Verisign and the other gtld registries. In terms of the current remedies proposed by Verisign, here is my response to Verisign: ================= From: Thomas Barrett President EnCirca, Inc. Reading, MA To: Rusty Lewis Executive Vice President VeriSign Naming and Directory Services Re: Feedback on use of Batch Pool for Expired Domain Names Dear Mr. Lewis, This is EnCirca's response to your September 17, 2004 request for feedback on remedies for managing issues related to the Verisign Batch Pool. EnCirca was formed in December, 2001. Our customer base consists of trademark owners, small businesses and individuals. Late in 2002, we started to participate in the batch pool process, which we have outsourced to one of the service providers in the industry. As a smaller registrar, participating in the batch pool provides both a new revenue stream as well as a source of new customers. This revenue stream also helps ensure EnCirca keeps current with the introduction of new registry services. We would urge Verisign to avoid implementing any new policies that provide greater Batch Pool capacity to registrars based on their installed base of domains or overall transaction volume with Verisign. This would disadvantage new and smaller registrars, the source of much new innovation in the domain name industry. Your proposed remedies would appear to violate one of Verisign's agreed-to obligations in the RAA: That is, ensuring equal access to all registrars, regardless of size or volume activity with the registry. Furthermore, in paragraph 7 of your letter, you state that "we believe that the kinds of abuses we are seeing are prohibited under various provisions of the RRA. The RRA contains important restrictions, prohibitions and limitations on Registrars' access and use the Shared Registration System, Registry-Registrar Protocol and other VeriSign intellectual property rights which preclude the kind of activity outlined above." We appreciate Verisign's concern regarding the RAA. It forms the basis of the business relationship between Verisign-GRS and the Registrar community. How Verisign reacts to this contractual breach is fundamental to the long-term business relationship Verisign will have with its Registrars. EnCirca would urge that Verisign immediately address the violations of the RAA that it considers is the root cause of these problems. Enforcing the Registrar obligations in the RAA would lead to greater clarity on the mutual obligations in the RAA. It would also lead to desired and appropriate Registrar business practices and strengthen Verisign's relationship with the Registrar community, benefiting all parties involved. While it addresses these RAA violations by Registrars, we would urge that Verisign continue to honor its side of the RAA - in particular; continue to be steadfast in ensuring and maintaining the equal access principle for all registrars, regardless of size or volume activity with the registry. Respectfully Yours, Thomas Barrett President EnCirca, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:35 AM To: Registrars List Subject: [registrars] Drop in service as number of registrars increases - time to change the regulatory model Hello All,
3) On July 27th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 30 to 20 per Registrar.
4) On August 20th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 20 to 10 per Registrar.
There is clearly something wrong with the current regulatory model, where as new industry participants are added, the wholesale supplier reduces service to the existing industry participants that have built substantial businesses over a period of time. What would happen, if as new internet service providers (ISPs) were added, the major telcos reduced the bandwidth available for the existing well established ISPs? Or every time a new airline wanted to access an airport, it was given the same number of landing slots and airline gates as the other established airlines (with a drop in service for each existing airline)? There are two quite separate problems here that are being lumped together. (1) a method to resolve contention when many registrars want to get the same name at the same time (subject of a separate email) (2) a regulatory model that provides all registrars with an equal amount of bandwidth at the same price, regardless of the size of their operations The regulatory model should allow equitable access of resources to registrars, so that all registrars can offer an equivalent level of service to their customers. Right now a new entrant with a few customers, can provide a much higher level of service, than an established industry player with many customers. In regulated telecommunications industries, generally a maximum price is set to allow new entrants to purchase bandwidth equitably (although large customers can get bulk discounts), and different industry participants get enough upstream capacity to meet the needs of their customers. The original regulatory model was appropriate at a time of less than 50 registrars, and when there was one registrar with substantial market dominance. The market is now much different. There is no single dominant registrar (although the top 10 account for around two thirds of the market), and there are over 300 registrars. This would mean that most of these 300 registrars would account for less than 0.1% of the market. Thus the regulatory model needs to mature to scale for a market with potentially thousands of small registrars, and a small number of larger providers. This is not dissimilar to the ISP market in most countries. Given that ICANN is considering new tlds, and re-considering the registry agreements that will govern these TLDs - now is the time to decide strategically where we are headed. Right now I think some parts of a registry's operations are over-regulated, and other parts are under-regulated. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:35 AM To: Registrars List Subject: [registrars] Drop in service as number of registrars increases - time to change the regulatory model Hello All,
3) On July 27th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 30 to 20 per Registrar.
4) On August 20th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 20 to 10 per Registrar.
There is clearly something wrong with the current regulatory model, where as new industry participants are added, the wholesale supplier reduces service to the existing industry participants that have built substantial businesses over a period of time. What would happen, if as new internet service providers (ISPs) were added, the major telcos reduced the bandwidth available for the existing well established ISPs? Or every time a new airline wanted to access an airport, it was given the same number of landing slots and airline gates as the other established airlines (with a drop in service for each existing airline)? There are two quite separate problems here that are being lumped together. (1) a method to resolve contention when many registrars want to get the same name at the same time (subject of a separate email) (2) a regulatory model that provides all registrars with an equal amount of bandwidth at the same price, regardless of the size of their operations The regulatory model should allow equitable access of resources to registrars, so that all registrars can offer an equivalent level of service to their customers. Right now a new entrant with a few customers, can provide a much higher level of service, than an established industry player with many customers. In regulated telecommunications industries, generally a maximum price is set to allow new entrants to purchase bandwidth equitably (although large customers can get bulk discounts), and different industry participants get enough upstream capacity to meet the needs of their customers. The original regulatory model was appropriate at a time of less than 50 registrars, and when there was one registrar with substantial market dominance. The market is now much different. There is no single dominant registrar (although the top 10 account for around two thirds of the market), and there are over 300 registrars. This would mean that most of these 300 registrars would account for less than 0.1% of the market. Thus the regulatory model needs to mature to scale for a market with potentially thousands of small registrars, and a small number of larger providers. This is not dissimilar to the ISP market in most countries. Given that ICANN is considering new tlds, and re-considering the registry agreements that will govern these TLDs - now is the time to decide strategically where we are headed. Right now I think some parts of a registry's operations are over-regulated, and other parts are under-regulated. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Oops. I meant to say over-regulated and under-regulated. Cheers, Tom -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tbarrett Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:44 PM To: 'Registrars List' Subject: [registrars] EnCirca's response to Verisign Bruce, I'm intrigued by your comments. I would be interested in your ideas on what areas of the RAA you consider to be over-regulated and what areas you consider are over-regulated. This would be a great way for registrars to start discussing possible changes to the RAA with ICANN, Verisign and the other gtld registries. In terms of the current remedies proposed by Verisign, here is my response to Verisign: ================= From: Thomas Barrett President EnCirca, Inc. Reading, MA To: Rusty Lewis Executive Vice President VeriSign Naming and Directory Services Re: Feedback on use of Batch Pool for Expired Domain Names Dear Mr. Lewis, This is EnCirca's response to your September 17, 2004 request for feedback on remedies for managing issues related to the Verisign Batch Pool. EnCirca was formed in December, 2001. Our customer base consists of trademark owners, small businesses and individuals. Late in 2002, we started to participate in the batch pool process, which we have outsourced to one of the service providers in the industry. As a smaller registrar, participating in the batch pool provides both a new revenue stream as well as a source of new customers. This revenue stream also helps ensure EnCirca keeps current with the introduction of new registry services. We would urge Verisign to avoid implementing any new policies that provide greater Batch Pool capacity to registrars based on their installed base of domains or overall transaction volume with Verisign. This would disadvantage new and smaller registrars, the source of much new innovation in the domain name industry. Your proposed remedies would appear to violate one of Verisign's agreed-to obligations in the RAA: That is, ensuring equal access to all registrars, regardless of size or volume activity with the registry. Furthermore, in paragraph 7 of your letter, you state that "we believe that the kinds of abuses we are seeing are prohibited under various provisions of the RRA. The RRA contains important restrictions, prohibitions and limitations on Registrars' access and use the Shared Registration System, Registry-Registrar Protocol and other VeriSign intellectual property rights which preclude the kind of activity outlined above." We appreciate Verisign's concern regarding the RAA. It forms the basis of the business relationship between Verisign-GRS and the Registrar community. How Verisign reacts to this contractual breach is fundamental to the long-term business relationship Verisign will have with its Registrars. EnCirca would urge that Verisign immediately address the violations of the RAA that it considers is the root cause of these problems. Enforcing the Registrar obligations in the RAA would lead to greater clarity on the mutual obligations in the RAA. It would also lead to desired and appropriate Registrar business practices and strengthen Verisign's relationship with the Registrar community, benefiting all parties involved. While it addresses these RAA violations by Registrars, we would urge that Verisign continue to honor its side of the RAA - in particular; continue to be steadfast in ensuring and maintaining the equal access principle for all registrars, regardless of size or volume activity with the registry. Respectfully Yours, Thomas Barrett President EnCirca, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:35 AM To: Registrars List Subject: [registrars] Drop in service as number of registrars increases - time to change the regulatory model Hello All,
3) On July 27th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 30 to 20 per Registrar.
4) On August 20th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 20 to 10 per Registrar.
There is clearly something wrong with the current regulatory model, where as new industry participants are added, the wholesale supplier reduces service to the existing industry participants that have built substantial businesses over a period of time. What would happen, if as new internet service providers (ISPs) were added, the major telcos reduced the bandwidth available for the existing well established ISPs? Or every time a new airline wanted to access an airport, it was given the same number of landing slots and airline gates as the other established airlines (with a drop in service for each existing airline)? There are two quite separate problems here that are being lumped together. (1) a method to resolve contention when many registrars want to get the same name at the same time (subject of a separate email) (2) a regulatory model that provides all registrars with an equal amount of bandwidth at the same price, regardless of the size of their operations The regulatory model should allow equitable access of resources to registrars, so that all registrars can offer an equivalent level of service to their customers. Right now a new entrant with a few customers, can provide a much higher level of service, than an established industry player with many customers. In regulated telecommunications industries, generally a maximum price is set to allow new entrants to purchase bandwidth equitably (although large customers can get bulk discounts), and different industry participants get enough upstream capacity to meet the needs of their customers. The original regulatory model was appropriate at a time of less than 50 registrars, and when there was one registrar with substantial market dominance. The market is now much different. There is no single dominant registrar (although the top 10 account for around two thirds of the market), and there are over 300 registrars. This would mean that most of these 300 registrars would account for less than 0.1% of the market. Thus the regulatory model needs to mature to scale for a market with potentially thousands of small registrars, and a small number of larger providers. This is not dissimilar to the ISP market in most countries. Given that ICANN is considering new tlds, and re-considering the registry agreements that will govern these TLDs - now is the time to decide strategically where we are headed. Right now I think some parts of a registry's operations are over-regulated, and other parts are under-regulated. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:35 AM To: Registrars List Subject: [registrars] Drop in service as number of registrars increases - time to change the regulatory model Hello All,
3) On July 27th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 30 to 20 per Registrar.
4) On August 20th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 20 to 10 per Registrar.
There is clearly something wrong with the current regulatory model, where as new industry participants are added, the wholesale supplier reduces service to the existing industry participants that have built substantial businesses over a period of time. What would happen, if as new internet service providers (ISPs) were added, the major telcos reduced the bandwidth available for the existing well established ISPs? Or every time a new airline wanted to access an airport, it was given the same number of landing slots and airline gates as the other established airlines (with a drop in service for each existing airline)? There are two quite separate problems here that are being lumped together. (1) a method to resolve contention when many registrars want to get the same name at the same time (subject of a separate email) (2) a regulatory model that provides all registrars with an equal amount of bandwidth at the same price, regardless of the size of their operations The regulatory model should allow equitable access of resources to registrars, so that all registrars can offer an equivalent level of service to their customers. Right now a new entrant with a few customers, can provide a much higher level of service, than an established industry player with many customers. In regulated telecommunications industries, generally a maximum price is set to allow new entrants to purchase bandwidth equitably (although large customers can get bulk discounts), and different industry participants get enough upstream capacity to meet the needs of their customers. The original regulatory model was appropriate at a time of less than 50 registrars, and when there was one registrar with substantial market dominance. The market is now much different. There is no single dominant registrar (although the top 10 account for around two thirds of the market), and there are over 300 registrars. This would mean that most of these 300 registrars would account for less than 0.1% of the market. Thus the regulatory model needs to mature to scale for a market with potentially thousands of small registrars, and a small number of larger providers. This is not dissimilar to the ISP market in most countries. Given that ICANN is considering new tlds, and re-considering the registry agreements that will govern these TLDs - now is the time to decide strategically where we are headed. Right now I think some parts of a registry's operations are over-regulated, and other parts are under-regulated. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (3)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
tbarrett -
Thomas Barrett - EnCirca