Re: Warehousing, TM violations & the new gTLD's

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

>One approach might be to reduce the profit motive for warehousing by
>recognizing that all domain names do not have equal value (for example
>movies.com vs qksiosduqq.com) and not charging the same price for them.
>In essence, having an open auction for highly valued names.  Obviously,
>there is no automated way to determine this in an ongoing environment, but
>for an initial startup such as that faced by the new TLDs you can judge
that
>based on the number of requests for a given name.

This is similar to, but more extensive than, a provision in Simon Higgs'
draft proposal. He proposed that when a new specific gTLD is created (that
is, a gTLD which is limited in that only a specific type of entities can own
SLDs underneath it), names should be auctioned off in this way.

On first thought, I had two things to add. First, obviously after the
auction is over, any remaining names (which are presumably not of
exceptional value) will be sold first-come, first-serve from that point on.
Second, it didn't seem to make sense for some limited or specific gTLDs. For
example, it seemed to me initially that, e.g. SLDs under .radio should be
auctioned off to news agencies (so if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
and Chandler Broadcast Corporation both wanted cbc.radio, it would go to the
highest bidder), but that, e.g., SLDs under .nonprofit or .christ should be
handled first-come, first-serve from the beginning (because nobody's going
to be making a profit off an SLD in such a domain, and the entities desiring
these SLDs probably don't have the same kind of money that, say, either CBC
does).

I've had a few more thoughts and questions since then.

First of all, prompted by your letter, I think that, if the auction system
makes sense, it probably makes sense for all commercial gTLDs--that is, for
all open gTLDs and for many (but not all) limited gTLDs. If an auction makes
sense for .radio or .news, why not for .biz (which presumably would be an
open gTLD without a limited/specific charter)?

Second, if there are initial auctions when new gTLDs are created, what
should happen if an SLD that had been bought at auction is relinquished
(voluntarily, under court order, because of abandonment/nonactivation,
etc.)? Should the SLD be reauctioned? Should it go to the next highest
bidder who still wants it? Should it be placed in the first-come,
first-serve pool like any other SLD? I think the next highest bidder
solution makes the most sense.

Third, where does the money from these auctions go? To the cost of
administering the root servers?

I'm still not sure that SLD auctions are a good idea, but it's definitely an
idea to think about and discuss.

>No, I haven't considered how to actually implement this in the context of
>the gTLD system, nor do I know if it would even be possible at this point.

At this point, anything is possible. It's unlikely that an SLD auction would
be put into place for the MoU gTLDs if they are ever activated. It doesn't
look like NSI is going to create any more domain names themselves. However,
some of the eDNS people (or other people using alternative root servers) may
very well auction SLDs under their gTLDs, or may set special prices for
especially meaningful or completely meaningless SLDs (pgMedia/name.space is
already charging different prices for SLDs under certain special gTLDs, for
example).

Ideally, I'd like to see a some sort of democratic system (either on a true
representative basis, or a pure democratic basis, on a typical Internet RFC
basis, or at least following a US Government-style open proceeding model)
put into place to expand the domain name system, and this would be an issue
to be discussed by all interested parties.

>My only interest justifying being on this list (and with the current
>signal to noise ratio, may not justify it for long) is keeping up with the
>implementation of the new TLDs.

Actually, the S-N ratio on this list is better than on some others (I'm sure
you've seen crossposts from other lists...).

Maybe I'm more naive or idealistic than you, but I'm hoping to do more than
just keep up; I'm hoping that by trying to engage all parties rationally and
put forth ideas that nobody else seems to be putting forth I can actually
have an impact, despite being nothing more than an interested Internet user.

 >Obviously trademarks/etc have to be considered in addition to the value
>of the name, but I think the value should be considered.

That's an interesting point, but I think it takes care of itself. If
ibm.comp goes up for sale, and someone who doesn't have a legitimate right
to the name wants to outbid IBM, IBM will prevail in Court (ignoring the
MoU/WIPO boards for right now) and win a cease-and-desist order, at which
point the registrar will take the name away from its owner, and it will then
either go back for auction, go to the next highest bidder, or whatever.
There's no motivation to outbid IBM for their name.

On top of that, if IBM bids, say, $10000, there's no profit to be made by
someone bidding $12000 and then trying to sell it to IBM for more--if they
were willing to pay more, they would have bid higher in the first place.

Anyway, thanks for making me think.

--andi payn