SAVE THE INTERNET!!
YOU MUST ACT!!
RESPONSE TO THE GREEN PAPER IS CRITICAL!!
Your individual responses, and those of your friends and associates to
the problems posed by the current Green Paper Draft are critical.
THE GREEN PAPER,(GP) PROPOSES MANY BAD IDEAS.
THE WORST GP IDEA INVOLVES COMPETING REGISTRIES/(DATABASE OPERATORS)
THROUGH THE CREATION OF INDIVIDUAL gTLD REGISTRY MONOPOLIES.
Here are the GP arguments and my analysis of this terrible idea:
GP ARGUMENT #1: "Competition among registries would allow
registrants to choose among TLDs rather than face a single option."
ANALYSIS: COMPETING REGISTRIES DO NOT INCREASE CONSUMER CHOICE.
Consumer choice among TLDs has nothing to do with the number of
registries/data base operators. Merely increasing the number of TLDs
(i.e. CORE's 7 new gTLDs) expands consumer choice. Even in NSI's current
monopoly consumers do NOT face a single option. Consumers can choose
between .COM, .NET, and .ORG.
GP ARGUMENT #2: "Competing TLDs would seek to heighten their efficiency
..."
ANALYSIS: Neither consumers nor registrars provide any incentive to
"heighten efficiency" in a competing registry system. Domain names are
individually unique by definition. That is why they are desirable.
There is nowhere else for a consumer to get these unique domain names in
a competing registry system. If a consumer wants a ".web" domain name it
does NOT matter that a registrar can offer another similar name from the
competing ".arts" registry. Some minimal "efficiency incentives" may
exist between the operators of substantially similar TLDs, but overall
no such incentive exists in a competing registry system.
In contrast, CORE's Non-Profit Shared Registry System WILL
"heighten efficiency." The competing CORE registrars, each striving to
better serve their clients, will demand optimum performance from the
underlying shared database system. As concurrent members of the
non-profit registry, CORE registrars will have both the incentive and
the power to "heighten efficiency." Oversight of CORE registry through
the POC (Policy Oversight Committee) and PAB (Public Advisory Body)
provide additional incentive for the CORE non-profit registry to
"heighten efficiency."
GP ARGUMENT #3: "Competing TLDs would seek to ... lower their prices
..."
ANALYSIS: Neither consumers nor registrars provide any incentive to
"lower prices" in a competing registry system (see ANALYSIS #2 above).
The fact is that competing TLD registries/data base operators increase
the overall cost of providing registry service to the public. The basic
operating overhead cost will be duplicated in each and every competing
registry. Some may be more efficient than others but the overall cost
to of registry service will increase. Therefore, the consumer cost will
be higher in a competing registry system.
"lower prices." The competing CORE registrars, each striving to attract
new customers, will demand the lowest possible price from the shared
registry system. Because they are also the members of this non-profit
registry, CORE registrars will have both the incentive and the power to
"lower the prices" charged by the registry. Oversight of CORE registry
through the POC (Policy Oversight Committee) and PAB (Public Advisory
Body) provide additional incentive for the CORE non-profit registry to
"lower prices."
GP ARGUMENT #4: "Competing TLDs would seek to ... provide additional
value-added services."
ANALYSIS #4: The primary purpose for the seperation of the
registry/database function from the registar/customer service function
was to create competition in a market that is currently a monopoly. In
this new marketplace, consumers do NOT register domain names directly
with a registry. Consumers make their choices amongst all the competing
registrars. Providing "additional value-added services" and price are
the key elements of in this new marketplace. A registry/database
operator deals exculsively with registrars. It must deal with all
registrar on an equal basis. Allowing a REGISTRY to compete on the
basis of additional value-added services" destroys this new market and
recreates all of the evils of the current monopoly system. If
additional services become embedded in a registry, consumers lose the
ability to choose based on price and service. There is no practical way
of forcing a registry to provide a fair, "no frills" price to the
consumer serving registrar marketplace. As more and more services are
provided by the for-profit registry the distinction between the registry
and registrar is lost, the competitive marketplace is destroyed and
replaced by a system of monopolies. We end up with the very same
problems that we all are trying to solve.
GP ARGUMENT # 5: "Without these types of market pressures, they argue,
registries will have very little incentive to innovate."
ANALYSIS #5: Innovation will be best served in a marketplace of many
players, not one made up of a handful of registries (see ANALYSIS #4).
Personal Regards,
Alan Hanson, chair
CORE
P.S. Green Paper and response info URL below.
Paul Stahura wrote:
>
> The importance of all of us responding
> cannot be stressed enough.
> Each and every member needs to respond, plus any others
> we can get to chime in and support a shared registry
> and the CORE approach. With 88 members,
> we should be flooding their in-box, but
> I've only seen a few responses from CORE members so far.
>
> In case you don't have it handy,
> the URL for instuctions on responding and other information is:
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm