> >This issue is one of the most important and most difficult for us to
> >discuss, with respect to the Green Paper. The IAHC was started on the
> >basis of developing enhancements that would encompass com/net/org and all
> >additional TLDs not related to country codes. We simply did not see a need
> >for multiple registries but we very much did see the kinds of problems that
> >have just been reviewed on this list.
>
> I agree with Dave that we must address the reality of multiple Registries,
> but I was never clear on why they must all be not-for-pofit companies. I
> believe that allowing a company to make money is what makes them work hard
> to be competitive in service and price. I know that the CORE model is a
> non-profit company supported by the Registrars who are profit based. This
> works because the same companies own CORE that are Registrars. If they
> don't make their money on one side, they make it on the other. New
> Registries will not be owned by all the Registrars so they will have a need
> to be allowed to try and make money and compete with the other Registries.
>
> Bob Helfant
I agree that the GP is pushing for multiple registries, and apparently
it
seems that it should be accomodated.
But...
I am a strong believer that people choose TLDs based on their inherent
meaning, and based on what they want. What is more, I feel that well
managed registries don't attract MORE customers because they are well
managed and fair (though the contrary IS true, and we all probably know
a few cases where somebody wanted SOMETHING.cc-TLD but because their
particular cc-TLD was more than difficult and demanding decided to
settle
for SOMETHING.COM/NET/ORG).
As Roberto has pointed out, if someone wants SOMETHING.APPLE, then
SOMETHING.ORANGE is just a bad substitute, so competition at the
registry level only really happens when one registry screws up badly.
With a situation with mediocre registries and good registries, people
are going to go to the registry that has the TLD they want, not the
"good" one over the mediocre.
Allowing registries to profit will only see the registry undercut
service
to go as close to the "mediocre" that they can without losing customers,
so in this case I'd actually see all registries slowly pushing their
services down: the BEST quality registry doesn't get more customers
because of being the best, it only doesn't lose any, so it can afford to
undercut services (and thus increase profit) into giving service
slightly
(though not drastically) worse than its next "competitor"
(competitor???).
As Bob has correctly pointed out, CORE will give good service because it
is in its members interest to do so, ie it is an INVERSE profit company
(the less it earns the better off are the registries). That's the
meaning
(IMO) of a non-profit-association. Of course, in this case it's also
obliged
to give good service to the registrars (otherwise they are not better
off),
which helps in its bid to earn less. (better service is more expensive).
the registrars will choose the correct ratio between good service
(expensive)
and low prices (expensive to the registry too).
I fail to see any structure where the registry is FORCED to give good
service
AND low prices where it is a for profit, or is not fully owned by its
members
with a not-for-profit structure.
You could call this structure something like a club. Now, the members of
the
club are going to be registrars. If you have two clubs with identical
membership, then you have in reality one club. I can see 7 "clubs" being
set up to satisfy the GP, as long as they have in their statute the
"non-profit"
obligation, but I fail to see the logic behind setting up 7 to do
EXACTLY
THE SAME as one. After all, these registries, once running, will be more
or less running on autopilot, it's not rocket science. Look at
nominet...
The permanent staff is very small, and even so they have a hard time to
get
rid of the cash they generate. If you multiplied the registrations they
get
ten-fold, it would still stay with a similar operation.
My 2c.
John Broomfield.