Touton: More on Image Online Design.
Public and staff comments encouraged IODesign to accelerate timetable for making
their multiple-registrar systems available sooner, perhaps in as little as 30 to
60 days. Question of whether such an amendment is in order after the application
is submitted. NSI’s experience suggests this may be harder and more time consuming
than IOD now suggests. Also, questions of financing levels – no commitment of using
all available credit lines for this business, as principals also available in an
auto dealership which may require credit.
1.
Fitzsimmons: Affilias and Neustar seem more serious about opening the market and
providing competition with .com.
2. Cerf:
Impressed by Affilias, with shared registry and 19 registrars. Comfortable with Affilias
in the tentative basket.
3. Roberts: Values
of Affilias are consistent with my community. Tucows as a real-time registry is intriguing.
4. Dyson: NSI Registrar is a member of
Affilias. Are NSI Registrar and Registry separate? Will they be?
• Touton: NSI last year received a four-year registry
agreement, renewable for another four years if they divested the registrar and registry
businesses by May 2001. They seem to intend to comply with that to get the four year
intention. Expect significant separation of ownership shortly.
• Dyson: Even so, NSI registrar a big player. Affilias’s
co-op status is appealing because it’s different. But it doesn’t foster competition
in the sense that we’ve created a competitive market only to see cooperatives formed.
Would need some strong and binding language to prevent, say, NSI from changing its
charter to buy half or some such. Gives me a queasy feeling
• Touton: Sympathize with much of what you say. This “Nominet
cooperative model” is neutral, allows smaller companies to get involved in the registry
business. Affilias was open to all accredited registrars, and it is ICANN which accredited
NSI Registrar. Board could select Affilias contingent on certain changes to make
Affilias more like Nominet.
• Cerf:
And Affilias continues to be open to additional participants. Reluctant to set arbitrary
conditions; don’t want to micromanage. Should let business models play themselves
out. This seems a pretty good arrangement.
• Dyson: Affilias is open. Not sure that enhances Affilias’s quality.
• Murai: Competing with .com requires technical
ability. Need to emphasize this, or competition can’t exist.
• Cerf: Can’t have competition among incompetents. A collection
of registrars might well want to assure themselves that their registry works properly.
Registrars will invent new features to attract registrants, but all registrars need
a reliable registry. And this registry is separate from the one run by NSI.
• Touton: Tucows to be the registry, based on experience
as “sub-registry” for .com et al.
•
Cerf: Put this in the basket.
• Fitzsimmons:
Had Esther’s concerns when I read through the Executive Summary. But ownership structure
seems appropriate. Have seem similar models work. Tucows is a strong choice. Can
put this in the basket for now.
• Touton:
Affilias into basket.
•
|
|
|