Re: Monopoly/Ologopoly

[Alan Sullivan <sully@frontiernet.net>]

Stephen Harris wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> In a recent message, Leo Smith said:
> >
> 
> >  Kent Crispin wrote..................
> > :
> > : It just seems to me that the goals of the internet are simply not
> > : best met by  monopoly registrars.  NSI is a huge entity, by registrar
> > : standards.  But they don't have a branch office in indonesia offering
> > : registration services in the native envirionment.  With shared
> > : registries international dispersal falls out naturally.
> > :
> > Valid point...To achieve the objective outlined above, IAHC should require
> 
> But perhaps a bogus point.  If there are enough TLDs and the method of creating
> new ones is simple enough, then there would be nothing to stop a registry
> opening on Indonesia, primarily for Indonesian businesses.  If a company
> wants to register overseas, then that's their decision.
> 
> In a "monopoly TLD" situation, there would be nothing to stop inter-registry
> reselling agreements, as required.  In a way, this is similar to the IP
> peering agreements we have in the UK at Telehouse (LINX).
> 
> Further, it would be possible for a "middle man" to arrange bulk rates
> with a registry and act as a reseller in these countries, without having
> to be a registry himself.  This parallels existing companies (such
> as Netnames) who already can register a DNS name for you in many countries
> and have even translated the documents into English from the native
> language.
> 
> Thus, shared registries doesn't necessarily get you any advantage here.
> 
> Counter, a situation where shared registries are bad!  Vertical markets.
> Say a large society (oh, say a professional body, such as... the medical
> profession) wanted to register a .MEDICAL domain and restrict it to
> registered professionals.  Under this, they may delegate ISO based SLD's
> to the associated medical professions governing board.  The rules for
> registering in this domain would be quite easy to enforce in this
> monopoly situation.  But if the domain _had_ to be shared, there would be
> no guarantee of a registrant meeting the criteria (hundreds of registries
> all over the world!) thus diluting the benefit of registering in the name
> space, both to the detriment of the profession and the general public.
> 
> Conclusion:
> Whilst shared registries look like they solve a problem, it is not the only
> solution to it (if the problem exists at all).  Further, by enforcing the
> shared solution, a whole class of registry is prevented from operation.  I
> recommend a serious re-evaluation of the concepts of TLDs, in comparison to
> a free market where TLD's can be shared/resold/peered/restricted as required.
> 
> rgds
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3i
> Charset: noconv
> 
> iQB1AwUBMr6eu3Nl46r30GVNAQER9gL/eJ15ipkw3gwCK2j4nAyCx8P4puGC/taH
> 64O3oz4Z71TiexK3OQJz0ZQMnV4/9IIks6hgQC+WGKx3ejM3M5MM2srADYvB+RIH
> NPfJUcEYXlRdMHfJgOt1UUk8pdsrql58
> =Cx5t
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Hi,
I agree strongly with Stephen, I have noted a number of problems with
the shared TLDs and the example of .MEDICAL is another great example of
why SHARED REGISTRIES ARE A BAD IDEA! The reason IAHC needs to take up
issues of SLDs is because with shared registries NOBODY is responsible
for creating policy or enforcing policy with a domain. This requires a
generic policy that can never be covered by special case gTLDs such as
.medical. Registries exclusive to gTLDs are a GOOD THING. The current
monopoly of NSI is BAD. 
Ask anyone who has had to get a domain in .com - too many horror
stories. They HATE the current system. Just put togther a plan that
allows registries to compete with NSI. - This leads to another question
about the IAHC proposal - what are the 7 new gTLDs? And why 7?
 
Thanks,
Alan

-- 
Alan Sullivan
President
Top Domain Registry Inc.