Re: Tired of Waiting

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

"Christopher Ambler" writes:
> >No, it has just be denied by individuals like you who want to make
> >money by getting a profitable monopoly on public resources. The bulk
> >of the community has a pretty obvious interest in the other direction.
> 
> Your assessment is as inaccurate as your basis for the claim. What
> is the difference between a registry making an honest profit and a
> registrar making an honest profit? If both provide good service,
> contractually prohibit gouging and harm to the Internet, where is the
> harm?

If my assessment is inaccurate, would you please explain to me how,
exactly, a user of .FOO is to switch from one registrar to another
under your plan?

I don't even care about the money. What about if service is
dangerously bad? I have clients that have had serious trouble from NSI 
inaccurately cutting off their domain names. If you can't switch, you
are locked down. This is a "monopoly" in the usual jargon.

So far as I can tell, you are indeed someone who wants to get a
monopoly on a public resource.

In the U.S., we've eliminated non-portable 800 and 888 numbers. Why
should we accept non-portable domain names?

> For those of you recent to the discussion, please note that Perry was
> a member of the IAHC,

And damned proud of it, I'll say.

> the group that proposed that a single registry
> be created to handle all TLDs, including COM/NET/ORG (which they
> carefully claimed SHOULD be a part). Their plan, as you may be aware,
> called for registrars to pay $10,000 each just to participate (and still
> does).

I think the term "distortion" comes in here.

The situation was that a shared registry was built. This cost
money. Each registrar was asked to pay its share of the costs --
nothing more, nothing less. If a company doesn't have $10,000 to its
name, it isn't even going to be able to pay for a couple of computers
and high speed internet access. This was hardly onerous.

Perry