Hello Antony, et al;
There's one "something" that did get given out in the Magaziner report
"between the lines" as well as among the lines: Network Solutions is
handed, on a platter, by royal proclomation or whatever, the eternal
grant of ownership/managment of .com
It is no more "shared" than it is now, with NSI's Premium Partners
already acting as the "Shared Registrars" and entering name regisrations
and paying the full $100 fee because they have no alternative method of
registering .com.
There's no requirement that NSI set a lower fee now - they are left to
decide what the fee is themselves (unlike the current arrangement where
they at least had to ask NSI to approve the $100.)
My guess is they will "drop" the price to $70 upfront ($35/year) whihc
is what they already "net" after they pay the 30% infrastructure tax;
and they will save $ millions in customer support since all the
Registrars will have to assume that responsibility and cost.
Unless someone think's I've read it wrong - NSI get's the sinecure of
owning .com until kingdom come (or until congress jumps in and starts
handing out it's own sinecures).
Reminds me of my 10 year stint working for the mayor of Boston. The City
owned all the parking lots in Boston and it handed out lucrative, low
priced, parking lot management leases to all the Mayor's political
supporters (AKA cronies) ...these "awardees" charged whatever parking
fee they wanted, and paid the city a pittance for the right to do that
(and no taxes).
At the least, you'd think the gov't would be smart enough to auction off
the .com Registry (which we did with the City's parking lots once we
showed the Mayor the financial and tax implications of what he had been
doing), or put pricing under the FCC or something; not that I want
regulation, but government-sanctioned monopolies without price and QoS
regulations are (ahem) a disastor.
Everyone seesm to forget that NSI , with a market capitalization of over
$300 million today, is a company that was launched with venture capital
unknowingly provided by the US taxpayers (the millions paid to it by the
US agency NSF as its initial fee for managing .com) and which produces
nothing (its cost of production is zero).
No wonder Gabe Batista came out so much in favor of the Magaziner plan -
it grants him a lifelong job. It strengthens NSI's stock (once Wall
Street figures this stuff out) and opens up a whole new line of business
for NSI as well - Franchising its monopoly grant of .com
My $.02....
Bill Semich
Internet Users Society
and
The .NU Domain
'.NU - The un.com(mon) domain"
http://www.nunames.nu
In reply to 30 Jan message from avc@netnamesusa.com (Antony Van
Couvering):
>Well, the famous paper came out. It's nice sounding, it's vague,
>and it puts off everything for a new IANA to sort out after this
>administration is out office. Bravo.
>Basically, there's nothing here for everybody:
>1. There is no time frame for new domain names -- could be a year
>or more, despite the fact that CORE, and even some of the
>alternative registries, are ready to go. When will consumers be
>able to register domains?
>The plan essentially pushes off all the difficult questions to a
>group that won't be formed until the year 2000. What is everyone
>going to do in the meantime?
>2. This is the beginning of the end of the old spirit of Internet
>co-operation, and the introduction of government meddling at the
>behest of political interests. This paper was the result of
>meetings with people in Washington -- in a word, lobbyists.
>3. The big losers in this plan are consumers:
>a. No domain name portability -- i.e., no ability to move from one
>registry to another if a registry goes out of business or engages
>in rapacious business standards.
>b. No ethical standards required of registries or registrars --
>short of breaking the law (which varies from country to country),
>a registry or registrar can do anything, including jacking up
>prices.
>c. There is no-one to appeal to in case of shoddy business
>practices by registries or registrars -- this will multiply and
>exacerbate the problems that Network Solutions has created.
>4. There is no leadership or co-ordination supplied in the interim
>period.
>a. How are registries to be overseen? What happens when one of
>them fails?
> Who will take care of the domains?
>b. What are the specifics of dispute resolution for domain
>holders? This is not an easy area, and it appears to have been
>given little thought at all.
>c. How will disputes between registrars be handled? How does a
>domain holder move from one registrar to another?
>5. This plan is a nightmare for trademark holders, who must deal
>with multiple registries, each with their own sets of guidelines
>and dispute resolution policies. NetNames knows all about the
>mess this can create, since we deal with all the nTLDs (National
>Top-Level Domains), each with their own policies.
>6. The plan is not in the least international, despite Magaziner's
>repeated insistence that Internet solutions must be multilateral
>and international.
>7. There is no way for other governments to participate. Surely
>they have an interest.
>9. There is no requirement that any RFCs be followed. Those RFCs
>didn't come out of nowhere. A lot of smart people with a lot of
>experience put them together. Is the government going to reinvent
>everything?
>Of course, all this will be good for NetNames, because as a
>company knowledgable about these things, with an established
>interface with the public, we'll be dispensing information and
>advice about the chaos to come.
> But we'd prefer to have a stable, predictable Internet, and this
>paper points in the opposite direction.
>Antony Van Couvering
>President, NetNames USA
>+1 212 627-4599
Bill Semich
General Manager
The .NU Domain
bsemich@mail.nu
http://www.nunames.nu
".NU - The un.com(mon) domain"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:20 PST