Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is why registries need the freedom to sell their own domain names directly 
to the public.  Adding a TLD that is not likely to sell many names is a 
non-starter for registrars, for the reasons that Jeff lays out.  Unless there 
happens to be an existing registrar that serves your community/niche, as a 
startup registry your offering could well be orphaned. 

Examples:

.kurd - no existing Kurdish-language registrar, or any in a Kurdish region  
.zulu - no existing Zulu-language registrar, or any in a Zulu region
.indigi - no existing registrar using any traditional indigenous language, or 
in a traditional indigenous region
.eus - no existing Basque-language registrar, or any in the Basque region
.cym - no existing Welsh-language registrar, or any in Wales

... there will certainly be other non-cultural/linguistic TLDs in the same bind.

Does any registrar on this list want to commit to selling these?  If yes, is 
anyone willing to provide a local-language web site and customer service?   
Anyone?  Bueller?

Antony

P.S. Not picking on registrars, just making the point that new TLDs need to be 
able to compete without one hand tied behind their backs. 


On Jun 11, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 
> Mike,
> Let me take off my policy hat for a second and put on my GM of a Registrar 
> hat and tackle this one because I think it is a valid question. 
> 
> The cost of adding a new TLD for a Registrar is high. Each Registry has their 
> own contract, their own rules that must be dealt with and a great deal of 
> work to connect to that Registry. Then once the TLD is connected on the back 
> end , the Registrar must do all the work on the front end, the customer 
> facing side. Add the TLD to their offerings, their purchase path and their 
> marketing. The engineering, legal and marketing costs to add a TLD are not 
> trivial so to force all Registrars to add all TLDs would cause enormous 
> financial strain to Registrars and probably force most to shut down. Those 
> that would still be around would have to increase prices just to be handle 
> all this work so we would see a dramatic increase in the price of a domain. 
> The Registry would also have much higher costs because they would need to 
> offer equivalent access to each Registrar and the upgrades needed to do that 
> would be enormous, especially for a new TLD. This would likely cause the 
> wholesale price of a TLD from a Registry to go up dramatically. So increased 
> prices from supplier and retailer. Not something we would like to see.
> What would make this a double whammy is the idea that Registrars could not 
> participate in applying for TLDs but would now be required to carry everyone 
> else's TLD is incredibly unfair.
> Sorry to be all doom and gloom, but from running a Registrar I can tell you 
> that the idea of a Registrar having to offer all TLDs just could not work. 
> 
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Mike Rodenbaugh [icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 5:15 PM
> To: 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'; 'Milton L Mueller'
> Cc: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
> 
> I think the point is that, if all registries must allow access to all
> registrars, then why should all registrars not be forced to offer all TLDs?
> 
> 
> It is an excellent question.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:30 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 Jun 2010, at 19:51, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 
>>> I do not get your argument of registries using being ineffective or
>>> having to bear a large investment if they use registrars. Do not
>>> registrars act as effective multipliers for most TLDs? Registrars also
>>> reduce the need for end-customer support, thereby reducing costs. The
>>> use of registrars will _help_ new TLDs to become viable, not obstruct
>>> them.
>> 
>> If that's the case there's no need to force them to use registrars, and
> (vice-versa) no need to require all registrars to carry all TLDs
> 
> Milton
> 
> Sorry, but where are "registrars required to carry all TLDs"?
> 
> Or is this a hypothetical?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele
> 
> 
>> Obviously the situation will vary from case to case.
>> 
> 
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://mneylon.tel
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> US: 213-233-1612
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845