Re: Shared domains

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> 
> At 01:31 AM 11/19/96 -0500, John R Levine wrote:
> 
> >Almost all of the complaints I've seen about the current domain
> >registration process would be addressed at least as well by shared
> >registries for the existing domains as by adding more domains.  The only
> >one that might not be is the concern about similar trademarks colliding in
> >.COM, but as been amply noted already, there's reason to doubt that adding
> >new domains will help that much in practice.
> >
> >Also, although the standards for domain service are well established, the
> >only standards I've seen for registrations are the ones that the various
> >NICs have evolved, and they're not exactly universally satisfactory. If
> >there are going to be registry standards, they're going to have to be
> >invented whether they're for single or multiple registries per domain.
> >
> >I'm putting together a position paper outlining how I think shared domains
> >would work, the technically straightforward neutral DBMS scenario,
> >modelled after the 800/888 database, that I've been flogging for ages.
> >
> >It certainly would be procedurally easier to annoint some new
> >single-registry iTLDs and declare the job done, but that seems to me
> >unlikely to make people very happy.  Either new iTLDs won't be very
> >popular, in which case it doesn't matter and everyone will stay in .COM
> >and continue to be mad at the Internic and their ISO TLD registries, or
> >else some of the new iTLDs will become popular, in which case the policies
> >and procedures of their monopoly registries will come under scrutiny and
> >we'll be right back where we are now.  Only shared registries offer a way
> >out of this cycle.
> 
> Having an iTLD is like having an apartment.  Sharing an iTLD is like sharing
> an apartment.  You have to be able to get along
> in order to survive.  What if one of the registries registers 10,000 popular
> generic words in the shared iTLD in order to resell it later, thereby locking
> out his competing registries from getting their hands on these choice
> names?  If your answer is that registries can't own names in their
> own registry, then what is to stop a shell company set up in the Cayman
> Islands, owned by the registry in question from entering the request?

No.  It doesn't have to be that way if you set up a fee per transaction
model.  I may register my domain for free from this Cayman Islands
registry.  But so what.  When I registered my domain, they still owe
money to the meta-registry, and future transactions of mine DON'T have
to be through the Cayman registry.

Sample charge model:(EXAMPLES ONLY)

Domain Creation ---- $30 --> Registry ----- $15 ----> Meta Registry
Domain Deletion ---- $5 ---> Registry ----- $2 -----> Meta Registry
Domain Mod(Simple)-- $15 --> Registry ----- $7 -----> Meta Registry
Domain Mod(Major) -- $25 --> Registry ----- $12 ----> Meta Registry
Yearly Fee per dom - $27 --> Registry ----- $25 ----> Meta Registry

Now, the beauty here is that a control board basically fixes prices for
the Meta registry, keeps an eye on their books and makes sure they keep
up the infrastructure.  The Meta registry will be allowed to make a
define percent profit out of the funds collected(as in many government
contracts).  

Registries will be allowed to set their own prices.  They will be able
to fairly compete with other registries who face the same meta-registry
costs.  

Now you have a competitive business model where the customers can be
ensured that "their is always another registry".  Of course the numbers
above are made up with almost no thought, except for the yearly fee. 
The yearly fee would be collected by the registry and basically passed
on to the meta-registry with a handling charge.

Vince Wolodkin