Suing buy domains, ICANN and or buydomains

[Diogenes]

jberry:

You may want your client to read this:

http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-12feb02.htm

Registrar Advisory Concerning Inappropriate Lending of Registry Access

Based on recent communications with registrars, it has become apparent that some ICANN-accredited registrars may be inappropriately lending their access to registries to third-party proxies. If not appropriately conducted, providing registry access to third parties can violate registrars' agreements with ICANN and jeopardize their continued accreditation.

I am not saying that your clients are just clever and it ain't fair. I am saying if they are "bending the rules" by gaining direct access to the registry (who thinks they aren't????) we should rise up make the game fair and equitable, so that all of us have an EQUAL chance to get the decent names, not one or two companies abusing the process.

D.

 

[Cartoonz]

Originally posted by Diogenes
...If not appropriately conducted...

Learn what that means.
No case.

 

[jberryhill]

Diogenes,

I read every advisory that comes out of ICANN, and perhaps you should take a closer look at that one, and the circumstances which prompted it.

That advisory is about lending registrar access to another party. There were registrars who were allegedly "handing over the keys" to someone else and letting such other parties actually use the registrar's access codes etc., in order to register domain names.

That is very different from your allegation that registrars are providing exclusive service to particular customers. If a registrar provides exclusive service to a customer willing to pay what the registrar asks, then what on earth does that have to do with the ICANN advisory on lending registrar access to non-accredited parties?

ICANN simply doesn't want registrars handing over the keys. How the registrars manage the passengers in the car is the registrars' business alone.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

In small business there is always general frustration about competing with bigger, better funded players.

But, as has been pointed out, most, if not all, of the parties being discussed herein started small.

So, be smarter, work harder, and think differently. You can make it to the top also.

If accusations of wrongdoing are going to be made, you need strong proof. Otherwise, it is just sour grapes.

=Gavel Bang!=

No case.

 

[wohl]

Originally posted by GeorgeK
I don't think you speak on behalf of DNForum members.

BuyDomains, UltSearch, and everyone else is competing very fairly and openly. There are always winners and losers. Instead of accusing them of collusion and unfair business practises, you should look to improve your own domain acquisition methods instead, e.g. getting SnapBacks earlier, bidding higher on NameWinner, etc.

For a 'fair and open' market there are a remarkable number of secretive deals.
What can it be except fear of being accused of unfair practises that is stopping all registrars from openly declaring that their registry access is open to the highest bidder?

Also the current system is not inviting for someone who wants a particular domain for his business. It would require a considerable effort to investigate the various services, with every chance of being second in line anyway. And snapnames favours the domain speculator, since even if they know there's little chance a domain will expire they'll be able to reuse the snap.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

SnapNames is one of the best allies a small entity could desire.

SnapNames doesn't care if you have $1 million in the bank, or $100 in the bank.

If you can afford to buy a SnapBack subscription from them for $69, they will be your partner and try to grab the name for you.

Start small, think smart, and work your way up!

 

[Edwin]

Two travellers want to go from the US to London.

One goes down to the local travel agent and buys the cheapest economy class standby ticket they can find. They have a lousy flight, with a cramped and dirty seat, screaming babies on both sides, long delays to change planes in Iceland and a bad case of food poisoning brought about by a suspicious airline breakfast. The bus to the center of town is packed and breaks down, leaving the billious traveller clutching at his stomach in agony for 2 hours in an out-of-the-way layby.

The other traveller goes to their local private airport, gets on their Gulfstream and jets off to London, making the crossing in just under 5 hours. On the way, he receives a massage from his private masseuse while his chef prepares his favourite dish. He dozes for an hour or two and is awoken for a glass of champagne just before landing. He is whisked straight into his private limousine and delivered straight to his 5 star hotel in the heart of London.

Ultimately, both travellers flew... but they both had vastly different resources available to them and therefore their experiences were also vastly different!

I hope the comparison isn't lost on anyone

 

[clemzonguy]

bump

 

[mole]

Of course BD (and Ults) don't want the WLS. If it is to their favor, they would already have been chanting "Bring on the WLS!!!" instead of joining the drop posse to hunt the Verisign witch down and hang her, doh.

 

[jberryhill]

Buydomains has taken a public position against WLS, but I really can't figure out why. It may very well be, since they are perceived as part of the "problem" that they would rather publically oppose it, rather than give away the game by supporting it.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by jberryhill
but I really can't figure out why.

I've got nothing against BD. In fact, I think they have a great service for developers to acquire names at very reasonable/sane end-user prices. Just bought a name from them for under $2k and I'm pleased as punch about the purchase. Also, fast and great service.

I believe the reason why BD is opposed to WLS is simply their current average cost of acquisition will go up. Significantly imho. And all the various volume deals/arrangements they have with everyone will have to be renegotiated on WLS terms.

Also, the WLS can potentially trigger off the registrant to the fact that people are gunning for the name. This is what drop mavens HATE most.

 

[jberryhill]

"I believe the reason why BD is opposed to WLS is simply their current average cost of acquisition will go up. "

I don't know that anyone can know that at this point - and maybe it is the uncertainty alone that makes them oppose it. NSI is tossing around figures like $25 these days, and that leaves open the option of volume pricing.

Assuming that Buydomains is paying for exclusive registrar access in order to attempt to get a large number of names, and then paying marginally over $6 per name registered, then I don't think the spread between [$6 plus the overhead dividend] and $25 can be all that much. $25 is lower than figures I've seen for wholesale snapbacks, and then there is what folks pay through namewinner...

I was pretty amazed this week when I let a snapback expire on a name that will probably drop this fall. I didn't think it was a big deal, so I let it go for a few days before re-upping, and found that someone had jumped on it. So, I get the impression there is a fair amount of gamesmanship with snapbacks that will readily transfer to the WLS.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by jberryhill
Assuming that Buydomains is paying for exclusive registrar access in order to attempt to get a large number of names, and then paying marginally over $6 per name registered, then I don't think the spread between [$6 plus the overhead dividend] and $25 can be all that much. $25 is lower than figures I've seen for wholesale snapbacks, and then there is what folks pay through namewinner...

I'm not sure if RRP access is a fair method of distribution for a system that only provides one chance to get a name to the whole world. RRP is fine when the corrals are still free for the running after infinite "snaps" by infinite registrars, but this won't be the case at all under WLS. One shot, that's ALL.

I suspect it will be a round robin system of distribution. If that happens, BD will see cost easily escalate 10x or more PER name, if you draw up the mathematics of successful acquisition. I'm just guessing of course, but I've been stung often enough by domain shenanigans to anticipate these things in my sleep.

 

[jberryhill]

"I suspect it will be a round robin system of distribution."

Of what? The name will go to whomever was the first to get the WLS slot, months in advance of the name dropping. If you aren't the first in line to get the snaps you want, you won't be first in line to get the WLS subscriptions you want either. I'm not sure you understand how the WLS is proposed to work.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by jberryhill
I'm not sure you understand how the WLS is proposed to work.

Heh, I'm not sure you understand how the domain game works.

1. Will the round-robin system help equalise to some degree the distribution of WLS rights to a domain? YES.

2. Will all ICANN registrars get more revenue from the implementation of a round-robin system rather than a first-come-first-served model? YES.

3. Do WLS opponents favor the biased, loaded and manipulative logic that WLS will benefit the big players to win sympathy of the common man? YES.

Go figure

 

[jberryhill]

Mole,

Verisign has proposed WLS as a service that will work just like Snapnames, but with the difference that it will be the only thing that works. Consider it Snapnames with certainty. The person who gets the domain name will be the person who signed up for the WLS subscription long before the name ever drops.

Nobody, nobody, has proposed anything along the lines of a round-robin system for release of expired domain names. If you think that is what ICANN is considering approving, then you are simply wrong on the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, and frankly I don't care one way or the other about WLS, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Explain how a "round-robin model" for WLS would work. WLS subscriptions, like Snapbacks, are one-to-a-customer, and they are placed when ordered.

So, I can't make sense of what you are saying. Let's say that one day you think <domain>.com - a currently registered domain - might expire a couple of months from now, and not be renewed. So, you decide that you want to take out the WLS slot on <domain>.com. Now, you are the ONLY person who is asking to back-order <domain>.com at the moment.

Are you saying there should be multiple WLS subscriptions available for <domain>.com through different registrars, and that the person who gets the domain name will be the winner of a round-robin thing among those registrars? Or what?

Because if that is what you are saying, then it bears absolutely no relationship to the proposal that Verisign has made and desires to implement. There will be only ONE WLS slot for a domain name, and it will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. Whatever you are suggesting does not connect with the generally accepted version of the reality in which the rest of us exist.

 

[jberryhill]

"Heh, I'm not sure you understand how the domain game works. "

Mole,

Engage brain before fingers. You either do not know what you are talking about, or you are deliberately mis-characterizing the actual WLS proposal.


http://www.icann.org/bucharest/wls-topic.htm

"VGRS proposes to offer the proposed WLS at the registry level by using technology supplied by SnapNames, a company that currently has arrangements with some registrars to provide a roughly similar service at the registrar level. In summary, the WLS currently proposed by VGRS would operate as follows:

1. Acting on behalf of customers, accredited registrars could place reservations for currently registered domain names in the .com and .net top-level domains. (In view of its impending reassignment, .org would not be included.) Only one reservation would be accepted for each registered domain name. Each reservation would be for a one-year period. Registrations for names would be accepted on a first-come/first-served basis, with the opportunity for renewal."

Do you see where it says "only one reservation"?

Do you see where it says "first-come/first-served basis"?

Does it say "round-robin" anywhere? No.

"biased, loaded and manipulative logic"

I'll take that over ignorant or dishonest any day.

[late edit - looking back, I see where you said "I suspect" it will be round-robin. I now understand that you never bothered to look at the WLS proposal in the first place. You should read what you think you support before you make demeaning comments about others. ]

 

[mole]

Originally posted by jberryhill

Mole,

Engage brain before fingers. You either do not know what you are talking about, or you are deliberately mis-characterizing the actual WLS proposal.

You should read what you think you support before you make demeaning comments about others. ]

I think you should try taking your own advise sometimes, berry.


It may be useful to note that Verisign made that proposal BEFORE they were attacked by the drop posse, not after. The drop posse did not accept that proposal. So change it!

I am just suggesting how Verisign could get out of this wrangle by introducing the round-robin system :-

1. The so-called "starving" registrars will benefit from increased revenues through the multiplier effect of round-robin systems.

2. The small players will stand a better chance than if the system were to ride exclusively off priviledged RRP assaults.

3. The method of distribution would be made fairer to the common man.

I honestly doubt you can counterargue the political correctness of this logic. Masking and deflection doesn't work for some.

 

[jberryhill]

"The drop posse did not accept that proposal. So change it! "

Whether the "drop posse" likes it or not, the proposal is not going to change. No way. No how. The Intellectual Property Constituency is the tail that wags the ICANN dog. They are among the primary supporters of WLS, because they believe they can avoid being bumped out of line for drops.

There are a lot of UDRP disputes being brought these days by people who thought that SnapNames was a sure thing. Snapnames did a lot of marketing to attorneys as "the" way to get expiring domain names. The entire ATTRACTION of the WLS to these people is that the WLS holder will have the CERTAINTY of being the only one in line to get the name when it drops. These people will go howling at the moon at the suggestion that you change the proposal to one where you might not get the domain name.

"I am just suggesting how Verisign could get out of this wrangle "

What wrangle? The ICANN board approved the WLS, and Verisign has more friends on Capitol Hill than a ragtag band of smaller registrars.

Besides which, you should take a look at this:

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/15/1610230&mode=thread

The upshot of the patent applications is that it is highly probable that dropcatching will become a monopoly service anyway.


"I honestly doubt you can counterargue the political correctness of this logic. Masking and deflection doesn't work for some"

I am sure that you are a creative person with many wonderful ideas on what would be fair in some alternate universe. But if you want to talk about the WLS as it is intended to be implemented in this one. Verisign is not in the least intimidated by any of the criticism of the WLS. The ICANN board approved it despite the objections of several constituency groups. And you are here supporting it on the basis of some "round-robin" idea of yours which bears no similarity to the actual WLS.

And, my name is not berry.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by jberryhill
[B Verisign is not in the least intimidated by any of the criticism of the WLS. The ICANN board approved it despite the objections of several constituency groups. [/B]

Hallelujah!

Okay okay you win, hill

Don't argue with lawyers, sheesh...