Re: An Open Letter to the IAHC

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Notes below:

John Palmer wrote:
> 
> An open letter to the IAHC:
> 
> OK - I have some time this Sunday morning, so I am going to quiz
> you on how in the hell this will work.
> 
> WHY would anyone want to be a registry when there is NO INCENTIVE?
> 
> How does a registry make any money when it doesnt own a particular
> resource to sell??
> 

I imagine that many large ISPs will clamor to be registries to provide
service to their customers.  They may or may not provide this service to
their customers at cost.  You don't have to own something to make money
from it's distribution.  Think of a registry as a middleman who provides
a service for a fee.

> For instance, lets say that I own the rights to a cool gTLD, such
> as .XYZ. People who want a domain in that gTLD come to me and I
> charge them $50 per year. They CANNOT GET a 2LD under .XYZ anywhere
> else. Bottom line: I have a commodity that I can sell.
> 
> Now, if someone else can also register people in .XYZ (maybe
> thousands of registries), how do I make any money - in fact,
> how does anyone make any money??
> 

Well, they can still charge $50 per domain name, or whatever, they can
still make money, they just don't hold monopoly control.  Those of us
paying attention have seen NSI's monopoly, and don't like it.  Why
should multiple monopolies be any better?

> If you have owners, then someone is responsible, ultimatly
> for making sure all of the name servers are in place (and that
> there are resources [ie: $$$] for running nameservers and WHOIS
> databases). They subcontract or join a registry guild and offer
> their gTLD's for shared registration.
> 
> Otherwise, no one is guaranteed any $$$ and there is no incentive
> for anyone to work hard at all. MORE IMPORTANTLY, we still end up
> with no accountability for keeping the resources stable for a gTLD.
> No incentive == No accountability.
> 

Your absolutely wrong.  The GROUP of registries(i think refered to as
the CORE) will be responsible.  Having just one entity be responsible
could have disastrous effects on net connectivitity.  Let's say .XYZ
goes heavily into debt thinking all the world will want to be in .XYZ,
when in fact only 10,000 actually sign up.  The machines, which they
leased, all get repossesed, and then you have no name service for .XYZ,
when the name service is centralized, and a group is responsible, their
IS some level of fault tolerance or redundancy.

> Someone please explain why anyone would want to volunteer to
> become a registry when they have no lock on a source of income because
> they dont have exclusive rights to own a gTLD property.
> 

Well, as I said before, just because you don't own it, doesn't mean you
can't make money.  You will just have to provide better service than the
other guy, you will have to work to get customers.

> Analogy: I am Disney. I develope a piece of intellectual property
> (for instance _THE LION KING_). Now, if the law allowed any tom,
> dick or harry to duplicate the movie and sell them, then how is
> Disney going to make any money off of the property that they develop??
> Disney, when coming up with _THE LION KING_, did it on a FIRST COME,
> FIRST SERVE basis - that is - they came up with the idea before
> anyone else, developed their product and then marketed and sold it.
> 

I think you choose a faulty analogy.  I don't think you actually
developed the acronym USA or the word earth.  I think a better analogy
would make the regsitries as theaters.  They show all the movies for a
price.  They didn't develop anything but they still make money.  They
also sell popcorn, sodas, and candy(connectivity, email, web hosting). 
They make money as a business.  They might even show a bad movie now and
again.  If a theater goes bankrupt, the customers can always find
another theater.

> I came up with USA and EARTH first, I developed them and marketed
> them.
> 

How wonderful for you.  It's funny I don't ever recall seeing an
advertisement for .USA or .EARTH.  Probably because no reputable
magazine would accept them without large disclaimers like "Warning: 
These domain names may not be accessible to up to 98% of the
internet-going public".  What was there to develop here?

> Why is it any different from Disney and _THE LION KING_?
> 

It's a warped analogy.  You didn't CREATE anything.

> Disney, by creating _THE LION KING_ and by defending its
> intellectual property rights, does not in any way shape or form
> stifle or hinder creativity in the motion picture industry. Anyone
> else can come up with other ideas and make movies out of them.
> It only seems reasonable that the restriction be in place that NO ONE
> ELSE can, without permission, infringe on Disney's intellectual
> property rights.
> 

Well, at least they have intellectual property.  Are you saying that by
putting a dot at the beginning of the initials for the United States of
America that you have created intellectual property?  Do you think you
could slap a dot on any acronym, and make it your own?  

> That means - if you want to use their idea somewhere, ask their
> permission. Pay whatever they ask. Or, if they say NO, live with it.
> 

I guess then I should claim rights to .AGN

The rest of your message below is just useless drivel.  Somehow you have
managed to convince yourself that YOU own the internet namespace. 
However, saying it just doesn't make it so.  Its a nice try though. 
Good luck with any future delusions of grandeur.

Vince Wolodkin