Re: Public Resource vs Private Ownership

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > > 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. 

I honestly see no way for a TLD to simultaneously be single-owned/managed
AND shared.

> > 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. 

NSI was awarded a contract to manage COM/NET/ORG for 5 years. why should
they get "ownership" of it? And in any case, who can grant said ownership?
Complicated at least...

> > 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."

Well, given that the yearly cost (under the nominet model) is under $5 per
domain, and goes down with higher volumes (not much more overhead), then
charging $35 per year ($50-30%) certainly looks a bit steep to me. 700%
markup. Fine, they're not ripping much off in absolute terms per user, but
to justify the way it is done would also justify a thief in stealing $1 from
every bank account in the world (hey, he's not REALLY stealing much, is
he?). Also the question about the 30% comes in pretty fast. some call it an
unlawful tax. In any case, it seems it's just "sitting" in a bank account.
So much for the internet development 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. 

So we seem to admit that non shared represents a trap. Which TLDs are we
going to allow to be traps? COM goes shared, but ORG goes private?
It goes around in circles again to the question of who decides who gets
private ownership of a TLD.
".museum" is privately held, but ".auto" is shared. As the Science Museum
does NOT want to be subject to ransom, it registers as "science.auto" ???
Strange at least.

> > 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.

No it wouldn't. People think first and foremost under what TLD they want to
be. Only if it proves to be a royal pain in the butt do they change/seek
another. So, it gives private registries an incentive to see how low they
can go (bad service/high fees) before the rate of drop-outs/income starts to
make it detrimental to get worse. I will want my domain name to be under a
TLD that seems fitting because of its meaning, not because of who/what
manages it. And most enterprises/organisations/individuals/etc I speak with
seem to think likewise.
".us" is managed in a much FAIRER way than ".com" (though I think its
structure is TERRIBLE). Why do people go to ".com"? ...

> > 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.  

The problem is not so just shared against non-shared, but that the registry
should not be "for-profit". Even if the model DOES follow the GP and NSI
does digress the registrar from the registry, there is NOTHING preventing
the REGISTRY from pushing its prices up. So holding AOL for ransom is
perfectly possible... It is not that easy where the registry is non profit,
and ceases to have ANY meaning if the registry is the same registry for all
TLDs.

> > 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.

The average Joe Bloggs doesn't even know about NSI. Some have heard of
InterNIC ("hey, it's that central organisation that rules the internet isn't
it?"). Companies do *not* make decisions on what name they are going to
register depending on the policy of that particular TLD. First they choose
the name they want (under the TLD they think they fit in), and then they try
and go out and register it. If the particular TLD reveals itself to be
extremely difficult to allow registrations (and those doing registrations
know which ccTLDs I'm talking about), then the customer sometimes accepts to
register under one of the generics (COM/NET/ORG), but certainly isn't happy
about it.

> > 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. 

This is (IMO) one of the main sticking points to giving out private
ownership to TLDs. I'm sure EVERYONE would LOVE to own .web, .sex, .com,
.net, .org...

> > 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. 

Stick around, you'll be surprised... Ah, you said "credible".. (wicked
grin) ;)

Yours, John Broomfield.