I see why *YOU* would want that, to increase your profits, but why should *WE* want that? Perry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 10:36:20 -0700 From: perry@piermont.com Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd) Christopher Ambler writes: > I think you've got it backwards. Registries having control of the TLD > that they serve is the way most businesses are run. If this were not > the case, there would be no need for the US Patent Office, would there? Most businesses have no patents to protect their businesses. My local dry cleaner has no resort to government to compete with the guy who's literally down the block from him. He makes a narrow margin, but he seems happy enough to be in the business -- I go to him and not the other guy because he's nicer and does a better job. I see no reason to grant you any protection for your business. It will only lead to people getting stuck and being turned into cash cows for folks like you who don't want to compete in a commodity marketplace. > You could argue that there are many resources, tangible or not, that > should be mandated shared. If this is the case, why does the Patent > Office exist? I must admit that I'm against patents, but thats irrelevant. You are asking us to support granting you a monopoly on a set of TLDs so you can make more money, largely by taking it out of our pockets. No way. From my perspective, we have no rational reason to support you. Can you name a rational reason the consumer should want you to get a monopoly? All your arguments sound great -- from the point of view of someone who wants to get a lock on a chunk of the business. To the consumer they are totally invalid. > Mandating that all TLDs are shared has three big problems: > > 1. What happens to .COM, .NET, etc? Must NSI share now? That would be nice, in the medium term. It probably has to wait a couple of years for the contract renewal, but yes, that is the goal. > 2. What happens to strong trademarks that cannot be shared in the > first place, especially if the strong trademark owner decides to run > a registry? Examples, .AOL, .IBM, .ATT, .MCI, etc? I am far from sure taht I *WANT* any of those registered and polluting the cache space. > 3. What happens when a registry with significant funding undercuts > everyone else and dilutes the market to the point that nobody else > can compete? The consumer gets better service at a lower price? I don't see whats wrong with that. Its called "the free market". I know that businessmen around the world conspire all the time to use government and other leverage to stop competition, but luckily most of the time people are smarter than that and don't let them. > 1. What happens when all the owners of .FOO each chip in $10,000 for > advertising, and once the TLD has market momentum, I step in and > play? Must I chip in for advertising as well? What if the current > owners set up a consortium? I don't see why anyone should advertise .FOO in the first place. > 2. Worse, what if there's price-fixing? I believe there are laws that cover that. > I could go on, but I think I've made my point. No, I believe you've lost your point. > >Your argument makes as much sense as the famous Yogi Berraism "the > >place is so crowded that no one goes there any more". > > I don't see the analogy at all. Thats for sure. I think most other people see it, though. Perry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 10:40:24 -0700 From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Mandated shared registries >> Perhaps. I can see where this might work, but it doesn't change my >> fear that the ISP with more money to lose in the short run would >> take the price so low that nobody else could afford to participate. > >Why is this bad for the consumer? Maybe its bad for *YOU*, but why >should we care about that? Simple - because there would be a shakeout in which only the wealthy registries would be able to afford to compete. Perry, the point I'm trying to make without sounding like I'm trying to be "superior" is that my company *could* afford to give domains out for free to shake everyone else out. I don't want to do that! It's not ethical in my opinion - I'd much rather see registries compete fairly. The mandated-shared model doesn't allow that. Please, change my mind. Christopher Ambler President, Image Online Design, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 10:49:52 -0700 From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd) >Most businesses have no patents to protect their businesses. My local >dry cleaner has no resort to government to compete with the guy who's >literally down the block from him. If your local dry cleaner were forced to share his facilities with anyone else who wanted to run a dry cleaning business, would this be acceptable? >I see no reason to grant you any protection for your business. It will >only lead to people getting stuck and being turned into cash cows for >folks like you who don't want to compete in a commodity marketplace. Who wants protection? I never mentioned protection. All I'm saying is that a registry should have the right to sell the TLD that they choose without being required to share it. Nothing more, nothing less. >You are asking us to support granting you a monopoly on a set of TLDs so >you can make more money, largely by taking it out of our pockets. Excuse me? What money am I taking from your pocket? Monopoly? Hardly. IANA has a monopoly on root. If you support this argument, then you must support AlterNIC's argument that they should share root as well. >Can you name a rational reason the consumer should want you to >get a monopoly? No, but since that's not what I'm asking for, this is irrelivant. >> 2. What happens to strong trademarks that cannot be shared in the >> first place, especially if the strong trademark owner decides to run >> a registry? Examples, .AOL, .IBM, .ATT, .MCI, etc? > >I am far from sure taht I *WANT* any of those registered and polluting >the cache space. Irrelivant - it can still happen, and what you want won't make a bit of difference. You ducked the question. >> 3. What happens when a registry with significant funding undercuts >> everyone else and dilutes the market to the point that nobody else >> can compete? > >The consumer gets better service at a lower price? I don't see whats >wrong with that. Its called "the free market". No, the consumer gets ONE registry giving things away for free until such time as they're the only player, at which time they start charging for it. >> 1. What happens when all the owners of .FOO each chip in $10,000 for >> advertising, and once the TLD has market momentum, I step in and >> play? Must I chip in for advertising as well? What if the current >> owners set up a consortium? > >I don't see why anyone should advertise .FOO in the first place. You ducked the question again. Replace .FOO with any TLD you wish. >> 2. Worse, what if there's price-fixing? > >I believe there are laws that cover that. Not internationally. You ducked once more. >> I don't see the analogy at all. > >Thats for sure. I think most other people see it, though. Good, in that case, can someone else please explain the relivance to me? Christopher Ambler President, Image Online Design, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 10:56:11 -0700 From: perry@piermont.com Subject: Re: Mandated shared registries Christopher Ambler writes: > >> Perhaps. I can see where this might work, but it doesn't change my > >> fear that the ISP with more money to lose in the short run would > >> take the price so low that nobody else could afford to participate. > > > >Why is this bad for the consumer? Maybe its bad for *YOU*, but why > >should we care about that? > > Simple - because there would be a shakeout in which only the wealthy > registries would be able to afford to compete. Could you explain why this is bad for the consumer. I can see you noting that only strong players willing to take very poor profit levels will survive, but you have yet to explain to us why the consumer should want things to be otherwise. I'm reminded about an article I saw today about how rural phone companies managed to hornswoggle congress into granting them an exemption from the competition provisions of the new Telecom act. This translates into higher prices for consumers because competitors can't come in and nuke the lower efficiency carriers in price wars. Chris is trying to convince us that we should WANT higher prices and monopolies we can't switch out of. Why is that good for anyone other than Chris? Perry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 11:08:26 -0700 From: nreadwin@london.micrognosis.com (Neil Readwin) Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd) Christopher Ambler writes: > What happens when someone starts giving them away for free to corner > the market? Think it won't happen? As long as you continue to give them away for free I do not care. Once you start charging a price that reflects your costs others will enter the market again. There is not a significant barrier to entry, so you cannot overcharge for the service once you corner the market. That means there is no incentive for you to corner the market, so I do not see that there is a problem. > How much did you pay for Netscape or Internet Explorer? Nothing. I do not use them because I have a free browser that is good enough for my needs and I do not see any point in paying for Netscape. What's that got to do with anything? > What happens when all the owners of .FOO Interesting phrasing. I do not see them as the owners of .FOO. Neil. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 11:10:58 -0700 From: perry@piermont.com Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd) Christopher Ambler writes: > >Most businesses have no patents to protect their businesses. My local > >dry cleaner has no resort to government to compete with the guy who's > >literally down the block from him. > > If your local dry cleaner were forced to share his facilities with > anyone else who wanted to run a dry cleaning business, would this > be acceptable? Your analogy is totally specious. We've already established that 800 number portability has worked out just fine in that field, and that it was very important from the point of view of many consumers. > >I see no reason to grant you any protection for your business. It will > >only lead to people getting stuck and being turned into cash cows for > >folks like you who don't want to compete in a commodity marketplace. > > Who wants protection? I never mentioned protection. All I'm saying is > that a registry should have the right to sell the TLD that they > choose without being required to share it. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason you want that right is so that you will be protected from the sort of competition you would get if you had to deal with consumers being able to leave your registry at will without losing their domain name. > >You are asking us to support granting you a monopoly on a set of TLDs so > >you can make more money, largely by taking it out of our pockets. > > Excuse me? What money am I taking from your pocket? You are asking us to pay higher prices. You said you can't make a living if there is too much competition. Obviously this means that you are asking for higher prices for the consumer. > >> 2. What happens to strong trademarks that cannot be shared in the > >> first place, especially if the strong trademark owner decides to run > >> a registry? Examples, .AOL, .IBM, .ATT, .MCI, etc? > > > >I am far from sure taht I *WANT* any of those registered and polluting > >the cache space. > > Irrelivant - it can still happen, and what you want won't make a bit > of difference. Actually, what I want, and what other knowledgable people want, is likely to make considerable difference in the way the final system is run. > >> 3. What happens when a registry with significant funding undercuts > >> everyone else and dilutes the market to the point that nobody else > >> can compete? > > > >The consumer gets better service at a lower price? I don't see whats > >wrong with that. Its called "the free market". > > No, the consumer gets ONE registry giving things away for free until > such time as they're the only player, at which time they start > charging for it. If you can show me a single industry in which that has happened, I'll be happy to hear about it. Besides, it appears that you want to be the only player for your domains, so what you are upset might happen is exactly what you propose from day one for all the domains you would be running. > >> 1. What happens when all the owners of .FOO each chip in $10,000 for > >> advertising, and once the TLD has market momentum, I step in and > >> play? Must I chip in for advertising as well? What if the current > >> owners set up a consortium? > > > >I don't see why anyone should advertise .FOO in the first place. > > You ducked the question again. Replace .FOO with any TLD you wish. No, you don't seem to get it. I don't see why anyone would advertise *ANY* TLD. Put it this way: AT&T doesn't advertise about why having 800 number service in general is great. They advertise "Get AT&T 800 service and you'll get a great deal!". > >> 2. Worse, what if there's price-fixing? > > > >I believe there are laws that cover that. > > Not internationally. You ducked once more. I've ducked nothing. If you are actually worried about international price fixing, ask any of the major cartels. I understand OPEC is doing great, what with oil prices being lower worldwide today in real dollars than they were when OPEC was formed. This is the situation, pure and simple: you want a monopoly, and you want to pull the wool over our eyes to convince us, with tired arguments used for centuries by protectionistic pseudocapitalists who wanted to be handed franchises, about why it is that allowing people to compete with you would be bad. Well, we don't buy it. > >> I don't see the analogy at all. > > > >Thats for sure. I think most other people see it, though. > > Good, in that case, can someone else please explain the relivance > to me? "Why, if we allow competition, so many people will be in the registry business that no one will want to be in it!" Perry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 11:14:18 -0700 From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Re: Mandated shared registries >Could you explain why this is bad for the consumer. I can see you >noting that only strong players willing to take very poor profit >levels will survive, but you have yet to explain to us why the >consumer should want things to be otherwise. How many times do I have to repeat myself, Perry? I give away SLDs for a year for free, so that I'm the only player. I then start charging more for renewals, knowing that I've got market momentum that can carry me much farther than anyone else getting into the field anew. Additionally, I always have the threat that I can go back to doing it for free if anyone becomes a significant player. >Chris is trying to convince us that we should WANT higher prices and >monopolies we can't switch out of. Why is that good for anyone other >than Chris? I'm doing nothing of the sort. Perry, you're quite adept at throwing around assumptive arguments and mudslinging, which only tarnishes your occasional valid point. Please stop putting words into my mouth. Christopher Ambler President, Image Online Design, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 11:32:15 -0700 From: perry@piermont.com Subject: Re: Mandated shared registries Christopher Ambler writes: > >Could you explain why this is bad for the consumer. I can see you > >noting that only strong players willing to take very poor profit > >levels will survive, but you have yet to explain to us why the > >consumer should want things to be otherwise. > > How many times do I have to repeat myself, Perry? Even repeated forever, your arguments would still make no sense. > I give away SLDs for a year for free, so that I'm the only player. I > then start charging more for renewals, knowing that I've got > market momentum that can carry me much farther than anyone else > getting into the field anew. Ah, no. Sorry. The cost of entry is very low in this field. If you charge nothing for domains, and then start charging, presumably competitors will then show up. Besides, what you are asking for is a monopoly -- and what you are saying is, if we don't go along with giving you a monopoly, why, then, we might have, horrors, a monopoly. Say what? Your arguments are all pretty simple and false, which is not surprising, because all such arguments are pretty much false, and frankly there is little chance of your coming up with a surprising one, since business people have begged for special privileges for the last several thousand years, and at this point all the tricks of the trade are pretty much known (and worn out, I might add). As I keep noting, 800 number portability hasn't harmed the consumer. There is no reason to expect this would be the least bit different. > Additionally, I always have the threat that I can go back to doing > it for free if anyone becomes a significant player. And so what? Why is that bad for the consumer? If the only way you can defend your market share is by being free forever, well, then the consumer hardly suffers. If you are forced to keep your prices low for fear that a competitor might jump in, well, why is that bad? > >Chris is trying to convince us that we should WANT higher prices and > >monopolies we can't switch out of. Why is that good for anyone other > >than Chris? > > I'm doing nothing of the sort. Perry, you're quite adept at throwing > around assumptive arguments and mudslinging, which only tarnishes > your occasional valid point. Ah, Chris -- you keep saying that without a monopoly prices will fall too low for anyone to want to stay in the business. In other words, you want us to accept higher prices. You don't phrase it as such, but it isn't mudslinging -- its the simple truth. Don't even try playing this game. Its useless. You are parroting the same crap that protectionists (yes, protectionists) have parroted for tens of centuries. (If you don't think you are asking for protection, then why did you invoke patents and the like? Just to make conversation)? Perry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 11:37:30 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd) At 9:48 AM -0700 8/19/96, Christopher Ambler wrote: >Mandating that all TLDs are shared has three big problems: > They won't all be shared. Most will, but not *ALL* of them. Give that idea up. >1. What happens to .COM, .NET, etc? Must NSI share now? If you cannot > answer this one, stop here. I'll let it slide, for the sake of > compromise, that their monopoly to date will be overlooked. > Nothing needs to be done now. When the NSI/NSF contract expires, these TLDs can be delegated out to multiple registries. That's a natural process NSI have no control over. If it doesn't happen, you get to cry "foul". >2. What happens to strong trademarks that cannot be shared in the > first place, especially if the strong trademark owner decides to run > a registry? Examples, .AOL, .IBM, .ATT, .MCI, etc? > If these companies are unknown outside the US, they get .COM or whatever TLD is appropriate. Strong trademarks within the US don't mean anything internationally. Being on the WIPO list is good enough to exclude them until they can guarantee a true international trademark presence (like an entry for every country). >3. What happens when a registry with significant funding undercuts > everyone else and dilutes the market to the point that nobody else > can compete? What happens when someone starts giving them away for > free to corner the market? Think it won't happen? How much did you > pay for Netscape or Internet Explorer? > What's the model they use to make money? If a telco carried free registrations for using their internet access, the customer will still pay for it somewhere in their billing. One company will always have more money to pour into a registry than the next company. Microsoft & Netscape's balance sheets are several zeros apart yet Navigator is still the #1 browser. _____S_i_m_o_n___H_i_g_g_s_________________H_i_g_g_s___A_m_e_r_i_c_a_____ ... "I'm fine - it's the others" ......... President/CEO ................ _____e-mail: simon@higgs.com _____________ http://www.higgs.com/ ________ ... http://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-tld-cat-02.txt ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 11:37:39 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd) At 10:49 AM -0700 8/19/96, Christopher Ambler wrote: >>Most businesses have no patents to protect their businesses. My local >>dry cleaner has no resort to government to compete with the guy who's >>literally down the block from him. > >If your local dry cleaner were forced to share his facilities with >anyone else who wanted to run a dry cleaning business, would this >be acceptable? > Bad analogy. Registration services (the actual OUTLET) are shared by nature - - lottery, tickets, travel, etc. _____S_i_m_o_n___H_i_g_g_s_________________H_i_g_g_s___A_m_e_r_i_c_a_____ ... "I'm fine - it's the others" ......... President/CEO ................ _____e-mail: simon@higgs.com _____________ http://www.higgs.com/ ________ ... http://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-tld-cat-02.txt ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 11:53:01 -0700 From: Michael Dillon Subject: Re: Mandated shared registries On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Christopher Ambler wrote: > I give away SLDs for a year for free, so that I'm the only player. I > then start charging more for renewals, knowing that I've got > market momentum that can carry me much farther than anyone else > getting into the field anew. This would only work if all TLD's were mandated to be shared. If all TLD's are monopolies then many people will choose to pay for other TLD's because they like the name better. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 11:59:42 -0700 From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Re: Mandated shared registries >> I give away SLDs for a year for free, so that I'm the only player. I >> then start charging more for renewals, knowing that I've got >> market momentum that can carry me much farther than anyone else >> getting into the field anew. > >This would only work if all TLD's were mandated to be shared. If all TLD's >are monopolies then many people will choose to pay for other TLD's because >they like the name better. Exactly. This has been my point *all along.* Christopher Ambler President, Image Online Design, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 12:29:05 -0700 From: Martin Hamilton Subject: pointer to RWhois info Instead of reinventing RWhois, you could just be using the code those (nasty? :-) InterNIC people have been beavering away on for yonks... Check out for more on this. Martin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 17:37:29 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies Perry E. Metzger allegedly said: > > > Kent Crispin writes: > > Perry E. Metzger allegedly said: > > > I'll point out right there that just because the CDB generates the > > > "whois" information doesn't mean it has to run the servers. > > > > But it does mean we would have a far more complex protocol to invent. > > Not in the least. As I've said, whats needed in the first place is a > database protocol. Once you have a database protocol, this isn't more > complicated. > > > > Exactly the reason why I think the information should be in the CDB. > > > > If the information is available from the registry via a "whois", then > > there is no particular advantage to having it in the CDB. > > Of course there is. First of all, "whois" isn't a hierarchical access > protocol, so all the "whois" databases have to get merged the way > things work these days. This clearly needs to be fixed. > Second of all, the data has to be preserved if > a registry goes "boom!". What happens if the CDB suddenly goes "boom"? > Third, "whois" provides a textual interface, > not a structured interface suitable for transfering database > contents. A 25 line perl script that takes about 30 minutes to write will handle this quite easily. > > All this would fall out naturally for a model with local (to the registry) > > storage of the whois data. > > I really see no point to registry only local storage of whois type > information. It makes little sense to me. A design goal I implictly accept for shared tlds is that things should be as distributed as possible. There is no doubt that this goal is contrary to the goal of greatest efficiency -- clearly, greatest network efficiency would be achieved by having a single centralized organization (The SuperInterNIC) that handles *all* registration activities. Any centralized service is a potential monopoly point. If a centralized service is so trivial that there is no way for money or power to accrue to those who run it, then I grant it's probably not a significant problem. However, the more complex the centralized service, and the more things that depend on it, the greater the risk for abuse. A database that is the single, central, authorative repository of all whois data, and all SLD registrations is over my warning threshold for abuse potential. It is also a risk for single point of failure. Frankly, I would prefer a solution that does not have a central CDB of any type. I would trade off a fair amount of short term simplicity, reliability, and performance to meet that goal, because I think in the long run it actually is a better model -- registrations should continue without a hitch if an earthquake sank IANA and its computers beneath the ocean. - -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE 6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 1996 18:20:22 -0700 From: Michael Dillon Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Kent Crispin wrote: > > Third, "whois" provides a textual interface, > > not a structured interface suitable for transfering database > > contents. > > A 25 line perl script that takes about 30 minutes to write will > handle this quite easily. If you are suggesting that we build a pseudo-database interface on top of a text interface then I strongly disagree. I would much rather see a standard underlaying database schema developped and see people encouraged to use tools like gdbm or Berkeley db at the very least to implement this. In fact, when you get right down into nitty gritty implementation details
