Re: An argument against Shared TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Stephen and all,

  First let me comment to MR. Kelsey.  Hope you read this carefully,
MR Kelsey, and add another to your questionable list of 5.  5 +1 =6,
just in case you cannot add properly.  

  Ok let me comment further.

Stephen Harris wrote:
> 
> -----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.

  In accordance with the perposed "Shared Model"  this is correct.  But
there is no evidance to support this assumption/idea currently.  That
however does not mean it cannot be effected.
> 
> 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.

  I agree with this assesment basicly.  The arguments against a TOTALY
SHARED model, have been several and stand up pretty well in rebut to a 
TOTALY SHARED model.  (Review archives).  

  The strongest argument against "TOTALY SHARED model", it that it is
non-market economy approach.  In other words, in a market drivin economy
it cannot servive for ALL TLDs to be shared.  It would be contrary to 
current and future international trade practices in a vertual sense. 
> 
> 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!).

  Good point.  The problem is that NSI's dealings with its practices
have
tainted it's effectivness and trust to the public and business intrests.
Therefore, many would find this example objectionable out of hand.
> 
> 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.

  It really doesn't answer anything.  It permotes a inconsistant
approach
to amy market drivin economic system.  Standards yes, regulations only 
when extreamly necessary and publicly agreed to.  Making TOTALY SHARED
model,
a requirnment, is a de-facto regulation without any enforcment.  This
opens
up a whole diffrent and varied can of worms.  

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com