Re: Tired of Waiting

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

>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?

This is an excellent question. If you presume that the .FOO registry
provides database services at a locked rate, the only variable rate
is at the regsitrar. If a customer doesn't like the service from the
registrar, they are free to choose another. Indeed, if the registry
charges a locked and single (one-time) rate, the yearly renewals
go to the registrar completely. If a customer doesn't like the service,
they pick another. Bad registrars go out of business in a hurry. This
also allows ISPs to act as registrars for their customers. Bad
service means that they not only lose the yearly domain renewals,
but they also lose an ISP customer.

As for the registry, a for-profit registry and a non-profit registry are
indistinguishable when it comes to service. They can both provide
good service, and they can both provide bad service. The only
difference is in pricing. That is the ONLY difference. Now, I'm willing
to say that for-profit registries should contractually prohibit themselves
from bad pricing policy. Once that's done, they're equal. 

A for-profit registry can delete names at whim. So can a non-profit.
A for-profit registry can change dispute policy at whim. So can a
non-profit.
A for-profit registry can provide smooth service. So can a non-profit.

Finally, a for-profit registry has a "monopoly" on a name, as you
suggest, JUST LIKE a non-profit does, if you have multiple registries.
CORE, long ago, admitted that they wouldn't be the only registry. Many
IAHC members now say that there should be many.

If a registry doesn't contractually limit their ability to change prices at
whim, nobody will buy from them. For that matter, even non-profits
should do this, as a non-profit might decide they want to expand. That
costs money. Even when you're cost-recovery, costs can get pretty
high.

So, please give me a SINGLE reason to mandate non-profit if, once
you contractually eliminate pricing problems, they're indistinguishable
from each other.

>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.

If you concede that there are multiple registries, then for-profit and
non-profit can BOTH do this. There is no difference.

If you don't concede that there are multiple registries, then you're back
to saying that there should be only one registry, and I believe that issue
was laid to rest some time ago.

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

We've done it by having a single clearinghouse for them. That won't work
with domain names, as we've gone over in depth.

>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.


Yup. Cost-recovery, at a base minimum, still costs. I think that was one
of my points.

--
Christopher Ambler, Personal Opinion Only
--
NOTICE: The user of this email address is a resident of the State of 
Washington. Washington law provides for up to $500 per incident in
the case of Unsolicited Commercial Email (also known as spam).
This individual WILL file a complaint.