Re: Public Resource vs Private Ownership

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>]

I believe Patrick Greenwell worte some of this too:

>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.

Ok maybe driving on both sides of the road is not a great analogy
for you, but for many of us it is just that black-and-white and obvious of
an
issue.  OK so there are no *technical* reasons why both are not possible at
the
same time.  But as I said in another post a while back, there are no
technical reasons why a city can not be nuked tomarrow, but should we
do it?

It is just that one way is better for the Internet and the public than the
other.

I believe the shared registry system will provide
more efficiency, the same consumer choice and better
diversity, with far few problems,
when compared to the exclusive ownership model.
.

I think a better analogy is baseball.  There are different baseball teams
that are owned by individuals or corporations, and there are also
leagues, but who owns the leagues?  Who owns the NFL?
Why don't we have multiple competing NFLs?  It is technically possible,
but a shared NFL is better, for many reasons.

One main reason why we should not have "competing" (but not really)
registries
is because it will be ineficient.  As a registrar, I will
have to interface to umpteen registries.  That adds more
than a little overhead and cost.  For 10 other reasons
why TLD ownership is not the way to go in this case please see:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/02_11_98.htm

>
>> 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.

Innovation?  Hah.  The only "goods" that an owner of a TLD provides
is access to that TLD and the brand.  The only inovation is changing the
definition
of the TLD's name (the brand).  For example, changing the public's
perception
of the "tm" name from "Turkmenistan" to "Trademark".  That
was inovation.  But it is not easy.  Try changing the definition of the
word ".law".  Both of these goods (access and brand) were granted
to the TLD owner by the TLD granting authority (the US government?),
therefore the TLD owner is not
providing any additional benifit to anybody!

>
>> 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."

I agree.  I have no problem with NSI, or anyone else making money.
But, I think the point here was that people want to own a TLD because
they believe they can then "rip people off" because if they own a TLD
they have monopoly power over that TLD and then they can charge whatever
they like.  This is why the debate is heated.  The TLD ownership side
sees a government-granted windfall in their future.

>
>> 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.

The problem is that the TLD ownership group is not providing
any benifit to the public besides access to their government granted
windfall (hopefully, for them) monopolies.  So the statement above is
like saying:  Allowing both models lets some people operate
a shared registry while granting others the ability to own a monopoly,
rip-off the public, and generally make the entire registration system
less efficient, while at the same time providing no additional consumer
choice.

Yes, it is technically possible to have both at the same time, but it is a
bad idea.

>
>> 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.

What choice?  If they own the TLD, ".biz" how can I go
anywhere else to get a name in ".biz"???  What choice
do I have?  Where is the choice?  It is like Ford saying you can
have any color car you want as long is it is black.
Choice Smoice.


>
>> 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.

As a registry who has just been granted the TLD ".biz" for example,
why couldn't I sell all the names in that TLD in one shot to the
highest bidder?  I bet NSI would pay about a million dollars for
access to another TLD, especially if it had a good brand like ".biz" or
".web" or
".inc" or something.  All kinds of "gaming" possiblities will occur, besides
this one and the ones you mentioned above.
So the "Green Paper" registires will need a
good deal of oversite and regulations, making
no further benifit, one over the other, for the consumer, because with all
the oversite all registires will be the same.  All they will be providing
will be access to that brand TLD.  That is it.
TLD ownership is non-competitive.
TLD ownership is inefficient.
TLD ownership provides no additional benifits or choices to the public.

>
>> 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.

If you as the consumer looked into it you would find that the private
TLD is providing nothing more than access to the TLD, plus
 a "brand" based on the meaning of the TLD name.
Both of these goods where provided to the TLD owner
by the authority granting them the TLD (the goods came with the TLD grant),
therefore the TLD owner is
not providing any additional benifit to the public.
If you as the consumer wanted a name in that TLD you would
have to pay what the registry (via the registrar) was asking.
And then to keep that SLD, you as the consumer, may have to
pay even more next year.    The consumer would have to think it through
as much as many of us have, including you, it seems.  Many
consumers would not do think it through,
therefore, I understand the valid use of the word "Trap".
Don't you?

>
>> 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.

Yes, *another* major problem with the TLD ownership model.
Don't forget "when do they get them" too.
Oh,  and how about "how many do they get?"

>
>> 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.

Me too.

>
>> 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),

Crap!, not *another* problem with exclusive TLD ownership model.

>
>Determining the actual limits of cache coherency would prove most useful.
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\
>Patrick Greenwell          (800) 299-1288 v
>    Systems Administrator (510) 377-1414 f
>                          NameSecure
>\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/
>
>


Paul Stahura
eNom, Inc.
stahura@enom.com