From: Leo Smith <barter@ntplx.net>
To: joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us
Subject: Re: Is shared generally agreed...NO!
Date: Thursday, January 09, 1997 9:47 PM
Do you see that we have One More Exclusive Model Supporter here???
The exclusive model is gaining momentum and will eventually prevail, affording a wonderful opportunity for us greedy business people to gouge the financial eyes out of Internet users...and get away with it.
Those Internet users will squeel like greased pigs when we apply steep prices...but there will be nothing anyone can do about it once the exclusives get their way...
Bribes are already in the mail...our money is too powerful to resist...
Do you need some???
The message below in support of the exclusive model comes from Stephen Harris:
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-----