Re: SLD.TLD Portability

[avc@netnamesusa.com (Antony Van Couvering)]

Jim,

Your comments are based, charitably, on a fundamental misunderstanding
about how shared registries work.  The CORE database, which we contracted
Emergent to build, charges the different registrars on a *cost recovery*
basis.

At 12:31 AM 1/29/98 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
>The whole notion and concern about SLD.TLD portability
>is built on a house of cards of F.U.D. and misinformation.
>
>Look at the case of CORE, what happens if a person or
>company with a CORE SLD.TLD domain name finds out
>who is behind Emergent and CORE. What if they do not
>like the people that own/manage Emergent, for whatever
>reason. What recourse do these people have to request
>that their SLD.TLD domain name become portable ?

Well, if you just don't like them -- because for instance you never do any
business with companies whose names begin with the letter "E" -- then
you're a lunatic.

But, assuming not crazy, what are the *reasons* you might want to have a
portable domain?  

1) Because you're getting raped on price
2) Because the service is poor
3) You can get better price and service via another registrar.

CORE provides the domain name database services at *cost* to its
registrars.  The registrars compete on price and service.  Registrars will
push to make the DB cheaper and cheaper.  This has been the case in
Germany, England, and Denmark, the 3 largest national domains, where the
price has fallen hundreds of percent in just the last year.

>
>What if a company wants to register in one of the CORE
>proposed TLDs but they do not want Emergent profiting
>from their business. What alternative are they given ?
>The answer, none. CORE requires that people live with
>their decision to hand this business to Emergent. Just
>because they did it via a secret Swiss cartel does not
>make it any more portable or pallatable to the consumer.

That is not a reason.  That is just prejudice and crap.  There is no
"secret Swiss cartel."  Be careful Jim, you're starting to believe your own
propaganda.

CORE has always been about competing *registrars*, not competing
*registries.*   There is no reason on earth to have competing registries
except to make Jay Fenello rich.   Emergent doesn't own the database
hardware -- all the registrars, collectively, own the database hardware.

It's just that Jay Fenello or other even less plausible salesmen don't want
to have to offer good prices or service, they want to sell a name.  They
want to brand a TLD.  They think that a consumer should buy a brand, and if
the consumer doesn't like it, they should choose another brand.  That's
fine if you're talking about TV dinners, but it doesn't work with SLDs.  I
don't spend thousands of dollars promoting my TV dinner.

>
>Emergent was selected to be the company to handle
>this lucrative part of the CORE cartel's business. There
>was little or no discussion, it appears that all of the bids
>and proposals have never been made public and for such
>a lucrative contract, the time involved was very short.
>Consumers were not given a choice. Emergent has been
>handed a done deal on a silver platter. The only difference
>in them and NSI is that Emergent is in California.

Foolish FUD, Jim.  CORE is not a cartel.  It's not secret.  Someone had to
build the DB.  The contract was put out to bid publicly.


>
>We essentially have two "visible" done-deal groups at work.
>One has operated for years via the NSF-USC/ISI-NSI chain
>the other is now based in Switzerland and centered on the
>ITU-ISOC-CORE-Emergent chain. There appears to now
>be some hope that the NSF-USC/ISI-NSI people (i.e. USG)
>people understand that there has to be a plan for a large
>number of groups to make deals and prosper. That is called
>business. Unfortunately, the ITU-ISOC-CORE-Emergent
>group wants to be the only group making decisions. That
>does not scale and does not fit with the Internet model.
>

Actually, CORE shot JFK.  Didn't you know?  

Antony