Hello, --- JB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or holding an auction for a popular name to find it's market price.
My reading of the contracts is that they wouldn't be allowed to hold a traditional English auction for the domain name, because they'd have to set a price on an equal basis for all registrars. It might be possible, though, as the contracts are so poorly written. The way to get around it given my current interpretation would be that they do a Dutch auction, by setting a high price for a given domainn name for all registrars (on an equal and non-discriminatory basis to all registrars, as per the contract), and then keep lowering the price (with the 6-month notice periods observed) until someone registers the domain name. That would extract the highest price, and auction theory tells us that the expected price from this auction mechanism is theoretically the same as that of a traditional increasing-price auction. Frankly, ICANN should not be in the business of approving contracts with loopholes. They can be exploited. Consider the Domain Tasting / Kiting issue: http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-tld-agreement/msg00009.html ICANN's recklessness doesn't "shock and awe" me any more. Hopefully enough folks will speak up on the official comments board and other channels to force ICANN to send back the contract for another draft. See: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm to send comments. Champ Mitchell described the .com deal as one that "shocks the conscience." http://www.thewhir.com/features/061206_Hearing_Held_Over_com_Dispute.cfm I'm not sure the English language has the right adjectives or catch-phrases to describe these proposed contracts, which are so much worse even than the .com deal with VeriSign (still unapproved by the DoC, fortunately). Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
