An argument against Shared TLDs

[Stephen Harris <sweh@mpn.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[ This has got a little bit long, because I've been thinking out the solution
  as I've typed.  Please bear with me.  Thanks! ]

The main argument for sharing TLDs that I can perceive is that of protecting
the end user.  If I register fred.xyzzy with registrar wysiwyg then it doesn't
really matter if wysiwyg goes out of business - the other 'n' registrars
sharing the registry will be able to take over.

This _is_ a powerful argument.  I'm not convinced myself, but it is
powerful.  No other argument for shared TLD's comes close to this one.

So, how to counter this.  How about a SAFETY NET.

(Repeated ad nauseum) I am a believer in market forces, and that the
market can solve most (if not all) problems.  I am a user, not a potential
registrar/registry/blah/blah.

In this case, the problem isn't "how to save a domain if the registry fails",
but "How can we provide a safe alternative which is unlikely to fail".
This is a different approach to the problem, and one which requires some
thinking through.

Traditionally, governments have provided a safety net, however feeble - eg
the UK's "Welfare State", the NHS etc etc.  In our case, the closest we have
to a government is the IAHC (suspend your disbelief and read on).  One
solution would be to "tax" _ALL_ registries (assuming a non-shared model)
to fund a safety net.  Such a funded service could be a stand-by server
for all TLDs, and if the TLD in question fails a simple change in the roots
will keep existing domains active.

I'm not convinced this would work, and could raise a lot of legal headaches
(especially with regards to "taxes").

Another solution is right in our face... a proven registry... NSI!  Yes, they
are the "bogey man" at present, but they are a proven registry.  They have
80,000+ customers to prove it, multi-million turn-over and a good financial
backing (those customers paying $50 a year!).

All this requires is user education - they can pick NSI and register in .COM
and be pretty safe that the registry will still be around in 5 years time.
Or they can pick a different registry (eg .WEB), bypass the hassles of NSI's
trademark policy (which will probably change anyway once competition appears),
save money (perhaps) and have a free-er choice of domain name, but run the
risk of the registry folding.

It now becomes a market decision.  The market has a de-facto safety net for
those who wish to play safe, and alternatives for those who wish to go that
route.  The consequence of a registry failure is thus a business decision on
behalf the end user, pure and simple.

A nice side effect of this is that we don't have to worry about forcing
NSI into compliance with any rules the IAHC decides :-)  Non shared
registries can compete without un-needed regulation.

Yes, this is an ad-hoc thought (perfect for an ad-hoc committee:-)) and
possibly has holes, but it does show that the shared model being promoted
heavily on this list isn't necessarily the right answer.

rgds
Stephen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQB1AwUBMtWbkXNl46r30GVNAQH/dgL+I+ZTKh42lyzt66whxDnUZKvFvYGT/mgO
mu0XkwWyncvsSoYqblijYe119mXb2ck7fbATZaFrqfc5BxN7mgFTQNEOdqiri5b9
97lshM1RlidIBu0do7KkTbF8MSm6Balo
=tPkC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----