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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Andi and all,

andi payn wrote:
> 
> >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.

  Though I have some respect for Simon, I don't like that auction
idea.  The problem with this idea is it really provides for a process
that comes close to restraint of trade.  This may not be the opinion
of some, but that is how I see it.  The reasoning I think of here
is mainly due to the elimination of the small buisness person with
a great idea, but little money.  He could very easly be stimied
by this approach.

  In addition in the Telecommunications act of 1996, spicificaly 
prohibits this type of process to have this kind of effect.  So,
I conclude that this very quickly becomes an argument ir situation
in a circle.  Not good for the net, not good fro the user, not
good for small buisness, and in the long run not good for big
buisness either.
> 
> 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

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com