Re: Public Resource vs Private Ownership

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

Paul and all,

Paul Stahura wrote:

> 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
>

  Nice self permotion plug Paul.  But no dice here.  Your conclusions bare
a sharp resemblance to a MoU supporter.  Nice try though.  But no cigar
today.  If you like I would be happy to break down in a constructive manner
the flaw in much of you logic on your response to the Commerce departments
RFC.


> >
> >> 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!

  This is a one way negitive manner of looking at individual ownership of a TLD
obviously, Paul.  There are many other more positive arguments in favor of
TLD ownership.  These have been presented many times on this, and
the gTLD-Discuss as well as the IAHC-Discuss list.

>
>
> >
> >> 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.

  This is of course one senerio.  But certianly not the only one.  IMHO, this
senerio is self defeating for any registry to persue such practices as many
of their customers will easly see that this is not worth their time or money and

move on to a diffrent, possibly shared registry with a TLD that is shared or
do both at the same time so as to have a back out possition.  In other words,
shared and non-shared TLD's can co-exist quite well.

>
>
> >
> >> 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.

  This argument is obviously flawed.  For instance see my above possible
senerio.

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

  You have provided no viable argument to support that conclusion.

>
>
> >
> >> 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.

  You can easly have another gTLD such as .bus, for example and register
a domain name in both, with .bus being a shared gTLD.  Problem solved.
NEXT!

>
>
> >
> >> 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.

  First of all some regulation is needed weather there is a all shared or a
combination of shared/non-shared DNS system.  If anything is clear, this
certianly is.  Secondly, you argument has been presented many times in
many diffrent ways or forms, and rejected time and again.  My example of
just one possible senerio is an example.  (See 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.
>
> 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.

  This is indeed a fairly accurate statment.  The first one you have made.
But these two benifits alone might make it quite attractive to some
buisnessess.  There is also that idea that you have and semi exclusive
name space.  This in and of itself may only have minamal binifits now,
but much more possibly later.

> 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?

  Not necessarly, no.  I don't see a devil behind every rock and tree.

>
>
> >
> >> 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?"

  This is where regulation will be needed.  This is also true of a shared
registry system as well.

>
>
> >
> >> 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

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com