Re: Thread 1: Sharing

[Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>]

> 
> This seems to be the big one, although I see a rough consensus towards
> sharing. Perhaps I don't see it that clearly.
> 
> My take on it is that sharing is fine, as long as the two major barriers
> are taken down.
> 
> First, a technical solution. There are many on this list who claim that
> a technical solution is already at hand. If this is so, then there's
> no barrier. Shouldn't CORE make this decision at the very first meeting,
> then?
> 
> Second, the status of NSI. Is it not fair to decide that everyone shares
> as soon as everyone agrees to share? An agreement between the new
> registrars is simple to execute. Then, as soon as NSI joins in, we all
> share. This, too, may be immediate - or it may be when the NSF agreement
> runs out. 

It may also be never.

You do not know what NSI is cooking up, what legal challenges they may have
brewing, or what they may be prepared to spend in order to defend what they
have now.  It is a reasonable guess that with their current operating
margins as I can best estimate them that NSI would be well-prepared to 
spend US $10 million -- or more -- to defend their monopoly interest.

Whether they will CHOOSE to do so is not known.  What IS known is that we
have not seen ANY public commitment from them that they WON'T do this.

> It's out of our hands. To expect the new registrars to share
> the new gTLDs, while allowing NSI to continue to have exclusive use
> of the 3 existing gTLDs is grossly unfair.

Correct.

> The draft resolution, then, could be that everyone agrees to share as
> soon as a technical solution is found and NSI agrees to share as well.
> Until that time, registrars have exclusive use of selected gTLDs, while
> NSI continues as they have been. CORE will define/choose and implement
> a sharing procedure immediately, and implement it as soon as sharing
> is an option.
> 
> I see this as a compromise that all sides can feel comfortable with.
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler

There are still, IMHO, insurmountable problems.

1)	FCFS recognition for EXISTING registries (again, ALL of them,
	IANA-recognized or not) in the order which they ACTUALLY went 
	constructively online.

2)	Punitive application fees.  These are an outrage.

3)	Punitive restrictions on free commerce and trade (ie: extreme
	limits on the number of gTLDs and registries).

Further, consider the risk capital picture.  Why would you put up the risk
capital to do this if you HAD to share?  If you HAD to pay a tax on all
registrations you process which was not set by you and subject to no PUBLIC
oversight to a designated "committee"?

There's lots more -- but this is a good start.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal