[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Verisign Dissing Domainers?

[Evan Leibovitch]

On one hand, I am delighted to see such an acknowledgement of reality.
The use of the term "scalpers", while incendiary to some, is revealing in
its candor and maybe its intent.
However I agree that such an opinion is not made lightly, and is unlikely
for pure public-service reasons.

So... why?

Recently, a CBC investigation of Ticketmaster
<https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649666928/ticketmaster-has-its-own-secret-scalping-program-canadian-journalists-report>
revealed that the company encourages the hoarding and scalping of tickets
to popular events, and itself profits from the activity by getting revenue
from the scalped tickets well over and above the original selling prices.

I see one of two possible related scenarios, both of which are plausible
though could be wildly incorrect:

   1. Verisign is setting the stage to get a piece of the scalpers' action.
   It has watched as other TLDs roll out "premium" domains and wants to itself
   profit from domain sales that are inflated well past original value. It
   wants what Ticketmaster can do. While a scalper's revenue is a one-time
   sale per domain, premium domains may be perceived as a sustained-revenue
   path that allows Verisign to exploit a dominance in TLD space that really
   hasn't been challenged by the swarms of now registries.

   2. Verisign may suspect that regulatory reaction (of the governmental
   kind) against Ticketmaster may bleed into TLD space. There are so many,
   many similarities between ticket scalping and domaining which is why its
   use of the term in the blog is so apt. This might be a move to forestall
   state intervention by indicating that Verisign will be proactive in
   reducing scalping on its own. The revenue hit may be offset by the good PR
   and reduced threat of governmental interference.

Cheers,
Evan


On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 21:46, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> The RAA has always had a provision allowing ICANN to have a Consensus
> Policy prohibiting reistrars from warehousing or speculation. We have never
> taken action on this and I cannot see the GNSO ever doing so.
>
> The Verisign blog is interesting. Rare that a large company publicly
> disses its largest customers.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> At 02/11/2018 03:43 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> This post is actually taking aim primarily at REGISTRARS who buy huge
> numbers of .com domains at wholesale ($7.85 per domain) and then hold them,
> in order to try and sell them later for a premium price. That’s not
> really dissing domainers in the general sense, just these
> registrar-domainers.
>
> The writing is a bit sloppy on this point, and the blog pivots to ICA
> toward the end, but even there, the focus is on the registrar-domainers,
> not on the general domaining public. Look again at the post, and you will
> see references to “speculators†who buy at a “regulated price.â€
> That’s the Verisign price they are talking about. Regular registrants
> don’t have that opportunity — onlly registrars. The “Domainer Name
> Wire†article largely misses this point — partly because the post is vague
> and partly becausse of a tendency to “rush to judgment†in the domaining
> press.
>
> As Jonathan notes, ICA argues it’s protecting the little guy, when they
> are actually providing loads of protection for some very “big guyâ€
> registrar-domainers.
>
> While this is not “insider trading,†it is really a form of diversion
> based on insider access — the registrars abuse their privileged position to
> bbuy cheap and to buy before any “regular†registrant (even a domainer)
> can, and then they hold this portfolio and charge secondary-market prices
> for domains that are not really in the secondary market. Registrars’
> unique ability to buy domain names directly from the registries was never
> meant to produce this result. This is a bug, not a feature. The end user
> domainers should really be pissed off at the registrar-domainers, not at
> Verisign. (Of course, they are permanently pissed off at Verisign,
> especially with a price increase in their “commodity.†)
>
> Maybe registrars should be prohibited from buying for their own account
> for investment purposes. GoDaddy apparently has 2.5 billion reasons to
> oppose that idea.
>
> I don’t know if I would call them scalpers (though it’s a fair
> comparison). I see domainers more like the folks in Boston who get up in
> the morning, sit down in a lawn chair in a prime parking spot near the
> Fenway Park baseball stadium, and then sit there until game time
> approaches. Then they charge you $20 or more to get out of the way so you
> can park there. This is not entirely accurate either since this is a lot
> more work than a domainer would put in (at least for a single domain name.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:10 PM Jonathan Zuck < JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote: We'll, it's not particularly easy to take them back. Blog raises
> some good points about where the money goes. The ICA rhetoric about small
> business is pretty silly.
> Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
> ------------------------------
> From: GTLD-WG < gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels at gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 2,
> 2018 2:59:12 PM To: cpwg at icann.org; lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject:
> [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Verisign Dissing Domainers?   Um,.......hmmmm, a flag up
> the pole to see who salute you think?
> Assuming the posting it is sanctioned as official view, what is the end
> game here? Afterall, they are gifted ownership of every name, known and
> hitherto unknown, in the .com space! The domainers merely 'rent' them!
>
> Hmmm....we have a saying in my corner of empire, 'one hand alone can't
> clap'. Gotta follow the money.
>
>
> https://domainnamewire.com/2018/11/02/holy-sht-verisign-just-called-out-domain-scalpers-and-its-biggest-customers/
>
>
>
>
> ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy,
> Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs



-- 
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch or @el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20181103/3979bc26/attachment-0001.html>