> > > Jim wants to make an argument that there is competition between nTLDs. This
> > > is plainly preposterous - no-one would take a .fr over a .uk on
> > > price/service/performance etc.
>
> I would add that vice-versa wouldn't happen either (ie a .uk over a
> .fr).
OK, I will pretend that this has never happened.
> > 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
Yes, don't be deceived by facts. They are very pesky and irritating.
> 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."
So? The effect was that the difference in policy shifted the traffic
first towards .com and then later towards .uk despite the latter having
a higher price.
This is simply competition at work. Sometimes competition involves
price, sometimes service, sometimes policy.
The initial question was whether there could be meaningful competition
between TLD registries. The answer is an emphatic yes.
> > * 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.
Now, now. I already agreed to pretend that this never happens.
> > 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.
You are joking. One of the serious problems is that many governments
use the DNS as just another instrument of oppression or just another
way to gouge people for money.
> 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?).
More joking I see. In many countries the nTLD registries have been
captured by the PTTs. The PTTs are sometimes an arm of the government,
sometimes coddled monopolies. Generally speaking they are run in a
dictatorial, authoritarian fashion, are expensive, and are quite
inefficient.
In this they frequently resemble the national government, so complaints
tend not to find a sympathetic response ;-)
> 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.
So? The effect is that information about better policies and prices
drifts across borders and leads to pressure on nTLD registries to
improve policies.
> 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...)?
Yes, in fact. However, you have now begun to mix up two different
conversations. And in any case, NSI is operated better than most
nLTD registries; it is NSI that usually sets the better example.
I am not saying this because I support NSI. I don't.
> 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?
Yes.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015