Re: Is shared generally agreed...NO!

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

I know how to decide this.  All of the members of the list should get
together in an airplane hangar.  I will make up 300 shirts that say
shared and 20 shirts that say exclusive(I am being generous).  Then we
can fight it out;-)  I bet we kick your ass;-)

Vince Wolodkin

P.S.  For the sarcasm impaired this is a joke

Leo Smith wrote:
> 
> 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-----