I would add that vice-versa wouldn't happen either (ie a .uk over a
.fr).
If the company/person/assoc/whatever wants a domain that reflects where
they
are located (ie a country-code domain), then they MIGHT grumble and
settle
for a generic (ie COM/NET/ORG), which is NOT what they wanted...
> Our experience is that
> * there was a clear shift from .COM into .UK when Nominet took
> over .UK
Be careful with the true but misleading statements. The shift was for
the tendency of where the NEW registrations were going.
Wouldn't you agree that the AVERAGE new customer going into an ISP
says: "hey, I want a web-site/corporate email address, and as I'm in the
UK, then it should be something.uk".
Before the change the response would be:
ISP: "We can try, but it's a pain in the butt, and we can't guarantee
you'll get it anytime soon. We can get you a '.com' with no hassle
though".
Customer: "Oh... ok then." (and depending on each customer they'd accept
the wait, or say "sod it, take the .com".
After the change the response would be:
ISP: "ok."
Change UK for Spain, and ".uk" for ".es" above and you have what I had
in
Spain, only it didn't get to the "ok" response. Maybe Javier can tell us
what's the current status for the ES-NIC.
> * there is minor but definite leakage between nTLDs.
HUH????? Have you seen anyone with a ".fr" go to a ".uk" or anything
along
those lines??? Please, just a couple of examples.
> However, what you are ignoring is what I actually said up there, in the
> paragraph you quote and then ignore. In that paragraph I talk about
> pressure on the nTLD registries that comes from information. People
> look at how nearby nTLD registries are operated and then apply pressure
> to bring the local registry up to standard.
Ah, but be careful there. Under current IANA rules, the local government
for
any given nTLD is ultimately responsible, so in the cases where the
registry
is being run by private companies/individuals, they have to be careful
no to
do it too badly, or else face having the registry taken away by the
government. In the places where the nTLD is already run by the
government in
democratic areas, running it in a dictatorial fashion could be very
expensive
politically (meaning votes), and pressure has always been effective
(generally)
where there's political doings (why d you think the GP came out like
that?).
The presure that happens in modern Europe is that the registries
*generally*
are not thinking of earning money, and the peer pressure that happens is
that
they get pointed out how well the registry next door is doing it, and
they
get "shamed" into doing the right thing.
You think a for profit registry (for example NSI) would be "shamed" into
doing
things that benefit the user (reduction of prices, improvement on
policies,
etc...)?
You think that outcry would make them lower prices?
Personally, I think not.
> > >Oh, this won't happen. Nominet has repeatedly suggested that they
> > >lower prices and had it rejected by their registrars. Were there a
> > >practical reason for prices to fall, like competition from NSI,
> > >the prices would plummet appropriately.
> >
> > This is not true. Nominet has a duty to remain financially secure while
> > remaining non-profit. There have always been calls to lower the fee and
> > there has always been resistance to these calls. Nominet always took the
> > view that it was better to be prudent until more data was amassed on levels
> > of subscriptions.
> > I personally argued for lower fees at the start, but bowed to the majority
> > will.
> > I'm a Director of Nominet, so I should know!
>
> Well, Willie Black is the Managing Director of Nominet, so he should
> know too ...
And does he say anything contradicting what Ivan has just stated?
Yours, John.