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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anthony,

I heard Abe Forman the Sausage King of Chicago is looking to expand into the
Internet and may be willing to provide such services.

On a serious note. while I have not agreed with many viewpoints that M+M and
yourself have recently advocated, this is one where we find ourselves in
agreement.

Trivia question to the group. What percentage of the entire gTLD market (as
of last month when I checked the stats) are jurisdicitionally based in the
United States?

Best regards,

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:08 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"


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