Re: Waiting for Santa Claus? Privatize TLD's but *CHARGE* for it ! Ben/01

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

Ben and all,

Benjamin Azevedo wrote:
> 
> We all know that today we have people wanting to pay expressive amounts to get some
> "convenient" domain names, specially those very short, or that correspond to generic
> business activities as well as others that are commonly used within the names of several
> companies, like TV, CD, DVD, BOOKS, NEWS, TIMES, SHOP, USA, NY, and so on.
> 
> How can we imagine to give away to somebody not ONE name like these, but all of them, a
> whole set, equivalent to the .COM ?
> That is like making beneficent donations to who doesn't need or deserve it.
> Let's speculate on how would be registered those special names in a new tld ?
> If we don't trust in registrars we can imagine that they will take these names, or
> designate them to *friends* or even sell them to other interested parties.  None of this
> seems reasonable.
> If we trust in registrars we can imagine that these names will be given strictly by a
> first come first serve basis. In this case, somebody will win a lottery and pay just a
> nominal fee for a name that anybody else wants and certainly this lucky guy will end by
> selling the name.
> What kind of justice and fair use of the valuable addressing space would we be doing?
> 
> Let me talk about a recent privatization experience that shows how things should be done.
> This month brazilian government made 2,6 billion dollars by privatizing a cellular
> telephone license.
> That amount was paid by a consortium formed among others by Bell South, Safra Bank, just
> by the license to operate in Sao Paulo city, together with a state owned company. No
> premises involved. Just bandwidth !
> And everybody know those guys don't use to make wrong calculations.
> 
> The same applies to privatizing a TLD. There is no sense in giving it away to anybody.
> Except if the candidate shows a very impressive background of valuable contribution to
> Internet that is to recognized this way.

  Ok.  First, how do determine, and under what set of rules or guidlines
is 
anyone considered "Impressive"?  The determinations could be all over
the
scale here.  SO I IMHO, this criterion is pacarious at best.  Arguments
and law suits will be come rampid if this is any kind of criterion to be
used in the registration of any domain name.

> Otherwise it would be like having Internet playing the role of *Santa Claus* giving away
> a *gift*. Charging US$ 10.000 for this millionaire gift also doesn't make any difference.

  I agree that $10,000 is really a moot point and extravagant amount to
charge
for ANY domain name registration under andy set of criterion.

> Ask any corporation if they want to invest just $ 10.000 for a set of *all* names ?
> Guess if somebody doesn't want this deal.

  Of course not.  Unless they though it was th only way in which the
could
acquire a Domain name.
> 
> The solution?   Privatize, but *charge conveniently* for it.
> Let's analyze the main objectives, besides open more addressing space:
>         - Have the lower registration price *for the common user*
>         - Have a way to properly designate those special valuable names
>         - Make the better use of resources generated by the process

  Well you are getting closer here IMHO.  I would agree that a publicly
held
company should pay more than an average user or small buisness should
for
registration.  How you effect this method is where things get a bit
sticky.
> 
> My suggestion is to use the classical models that use to be applied to privatize roads
> and telcos.
> The winner is the one that makes either the lower price for the final user or teh one
> that pays the largest amount for the concession, or a predefined combination of both.

  Well remember there is no more lottery process.  The only elimination
criterion should be if someone registers for a Domain name that is
already
registered for.
> 
> Part of the *value* will come from choice names, that registrars will be allowed to sell.

  Well I guess you would need to DEFINE "CHoice NAMES".  BUt this i
really
a violation of restraint of trade, depending on how you effect this.

> We should permit that, after winning the service, registrar makes a special
> pre-registration for any name, as an auction, for a certain period of time when those
> wanting a specific name should  post their bids.

  Yes, this is like the Telco's and the US government did channel's. 
Not really
applicable here IMHO.

> After this, system should be run by the first comes, first serve basis, at fixed and
> *low* rates.

  I agree that this should be done.  But not after anything.  Any
registrar should
be able to register any customer or domain name seeker for any domain
that is 
requested and not already registred.

> Maintenance should be *low* for any name.
> I suggest to compare fees with those charged by credit card companies to cardholders.

  This is a very good idea!
> 
> How much money should we expect to make with such scheme? Certainly a lot of money.    So
> what?
>         In this case the best use for it is to invest in Internet diffusion and
> development.
>         I suggest to take those million *maybe billion* dollars, and use for:
>                 - Providing Internet access for those without it. Like a United Nations
> fund to install it in schools and public access sites. And training. We should warrant
> the worldwide availability of this fundamental tool.
>                 - Stimulate Internet development by creating special periodical prizes
> for  outstanding contributions to Internet progress.

  I find this idea a bit problemsom.  Too much politics can be played on
whom
and how those are determined to be "Outstanding" and on what scale.
> 
> Please note that the same applies to COM/NET/ORG domains after current contract expires.
> And in this case Internic should also return the fees charged in advance, beyond contract
> term.
> In this case (COM, NET and ORG), no need for initial name auction. These are running
> domains.
> New contract value is to be defined based on *revised* annual revenues.

  Hummmmm?  this has possibilities.
> 
>                                                   © 1997 Benjamin Azevedo
> 
>  (Please use summary message after this to any desired reply)

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com