Re: Public Resource vs Private Ownership

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@namesecure.com>]

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, John Charles Broomfield wrote:

> > And Jay, like many others feels otherwise. Given the inability to
> > reach any real consensus on this issue despite claims to the
> > contrary, isn't the reasonable compromise in this situation to allow for
> > both models? 
> 
> Unfortunately in life, sometimes different solutions are mutually exclusive,
> and trying to have both doesn't work (shall we drive on the left or on the
> right? I know, let's drive on BOTH sides).

Can you please provide me with any technical reasoning that would
prevent both models from working sucessfully? It is fairly obvious why
allowing people to drive on either side of the road would not be feasible.

This mutual exclusitivity is a product of your perception, and as far as I
can tell has no basis in fact. 

> Those proponents for PRIVATELY owned registries are almost SOLELY
> companies/individuals who aspire to "own" one of those TLDs,

So? That is often the benefit of being on the forefront of technology
and/or innovation in the marketplace. 

> so they are shouting like crazy to see if somehow they can "milk the cow" 
> after seeing how profitable it has been for NSI (what the hell, if NSI
> can make a million by ripping everyone off, why can't we...).

While I have no love *whatsoever* for NSI, could you please explain how
NSI is "ripping everyone off?" People are paying for NSI to provide a
service. NSI is providing that service. While I would agree they are
overcharging people I would not go so far as to accuse them of *stealing*
from people. Is the .cc registry "ripping everyone off?" They charge $50 a
year as well, and 30% of that isn't going to a "fund."

> The proponents for SHARED registries normally are people who try to think of
> the advantage for the end user, which is portability.

And allowing both models does nothing to preclude those wishing to operate
a shared registry from doing so, thus maintaining portability for those
individuals/companies that are concerned with portability. 

> As an ISP, with all my customers email addresses as CUSTOMER@outremer.com,
> if NSI (or ANY company) "owns" in a for profit way the .COM registry, they
> can force me to pay increasingly higher amounts for keeping that name. They
> can easily push the price artificially high (remember that maintaining the
> database with corrections, updates etc is on average WELL under $5 per
> annum; look at the nominet model for more info), and just carry on until
> they reach a limit where dropouts (because of price) are higher than
> returns... 

They could do that. Doing so could have a highly detrimental effect on
their business given choice in the marketplace.

> How much do you think AOL.COM would be willing to pay to
> maintain their domains -compuserve.com & aol.com- in exchange for NOT having
> to change their 12 million email accounts, PLUS the fact that if they DID
> decide to change, they'd probably get sued by a bunch of users who would
> ALSO have to change all their stationary. Imagine the economic cost of
> having to change from AOL.COM to AOL.FIRM (dumping AOL.COM)....
> This is just one example, albeit probably one of the most costly...

Under the Green Paper, no such possibility exists as .com, .net, and .org
are to be operated under a shared registry model which I feel is a good
idea given the past and present "ownership" of those TLD's. 

It is also important to note that under the Green Paper, all parties
registering a domain name are to be treated equally in pricing, which does
prevent or at least severly restrict the type of activity you mention
above.  

> Arguing that consumers should be more careful when making their choice and
> should choose a shared registry as opposed to a privately owned one is akin
> to ADMITTING that the private ones are traps, and it's up to the user to
> avoid them. Why allow them to be set up in the first place?

I am not arguing no such thing. 

Consumers make their choices based on their needs and desires, perceived
or real. If I, after looking at the options, decide that a privately-held
registry meets my needs and the terms that the registry offers are
reasonable then characterising the private registry as a trap is
incorrect and unreasonable.

> Also there's the other problem of deciding who gets a certain TLD, and why
> another company shouldn't. 

I agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and no one has
adequately done so. 

> If we allow a free-for-all TLDs, 

I haven't heard anyone credible suggest a free-for-all on TLD's. I
certainly wouldn't advocate one. 

> then it really changes the problem that exists on .COM to the root
> (instead of everyone wanting
> ".GOOD-NAMES.COM", they want ".GOOD-NAMES") with the added problem
> of possible break-downs of caching systems (most optimistic say that 30.000
> is the highest limit, though some even say that beyond 1000 is a bad idea),

Determining the actual limits of cache coherency would prove most useful. 

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell				         (800) 299-1288 v
			   Systems Administrator	 (510) 377-1414 f
	                         NameSecure		     
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/