[omitted: jdd's reference to the shift from registering in .com to
.uk when Nominet began operations]
> > > Be careful with the true but misleading statements.
> > Yes, don't be deceived by facts. They are very pesky and irritating.
>
> Ok, since you seem to be so convinced that this happens, and apparently
> your making a big point of it would make it seem VERY important, could
> you back up your statements with real life arguments?
What you deleted was my "real life argument": a change in policy
regarding registrations in .UK caused a large shift out of .COM and
into .UK -- despite a higher price.
> Because if there are only 2-10 examples, I find it really a flimsy
> argument to say that competition exists because of what has happened
> on 2-10 registrations out of a few hundred thousand.
While it's difficult to decipher exactly what you are trying to get
at here, the .COM->.UK shift was large, on the order of thousands
or tens of thousands of registrations. The raw data is out there
on the Net.
> > You are joking. One of the serious problems is that many
> > governments use the DNS as just another instrument of oppresion
> > or just another way to gouge people for money.
>
> A few messages back you said (though not with these words) that based
> on volume one should be careful to use the fringe TLDs when drawing
> arguments,
If you are going to quote me, please quote me. I have never in
my life used the phrase "fringe gTLD" and I don't know what you are
talking about.
> so following in that line, I was referring to what is
> happening in the meaningful TLDs (by that I mean those with large
> amounts of registrations).
There are only three gTLDs. All have reasonably large numbers of
names registered.
> And I think that any government located
> in one of the areas defined by any of those "large" TLDs would probably
> take great offence in being characterized as you do.
> My apology for not making it clear that I was trying to use what you
> consider to be meaningful.
No apology necessary; you don't seem to have any idea of what I consider
to be meaningful ;-)
The only thing that I recall having said about "smaller" gTLDs is
* monopoly gTLDs are probably acceptable where the number of
probably registrants is too small to make running a shared
registry economically viable
I have also said that it would be beneficial to have a number of
CORE-like shared registries with some variety in policy, so that we
can benefit from experience with each.
> > 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 quite inefficient.
>
> > In this they frequently resemble the national government, so complaints
> > tend not to find a sympathetic response ;-)
>
> Although again you have reverted to the "smaller" ones, your argument
> seems to go completely against the existance of ANY form of competition
> changing ANYTHING in those TLDs. In fact your argument about the
> registries
> resembling the governments actually makes me think that this analogy is
> a
> good one to be drawn.
What analogy? What "smaller ones"?
My comments were obviously aimed at nTLD registries controlled by
PTTs. They were not intended to apply to all nTLD registries, and
they don't.
The monopoly telcos of Europe have to be experienced to be believed.
It used to be that everyone coin-operated telephone within easy walking
distance of our office was normally unusable because no one could be
bothered to empty the coin boxes. Then British Telecom was privatised.
Within a short time the pay telephones became usable; there are now a
variety of coin- and card-operated telephones on the street outside our
office, an embarassment of riches.
Variety and competition work. Monopolies tend to be rigid, authoritarian,
expensive, inefficient.
gTLD registries are not special in this regard. If there is only one
central registry, or if one identical policy is applied by all
registries, all will suffer.
> I FEEL (personal thoughts here) that the existance of many registries
> creates as much a competitive environment as the existance of many
> governments. You seem to argue that because the government of France is
> good, Albania is compelled to have a good government too. Moot I'd say.
In fact if you look at history there is much to be said for this
argument. The American Revolution caused a wave of similar movements
around the world; one Ho Chi Minh used the Declaration of Independence
as a model for Vietnam's declaration of independence in the mid-1940s.
It is not that because one government is good all must be good, it is
rather that people look around and copy what they see as successful,
or demand that better practices be adopted.
The copies may be better or worse, but good governments and good
policies result in a pressure on the bad.
> > > > 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.
>
> What?
I am no spokesman for Willie Black. If you want to know his positions
on policies, ask him. The answers given in a public forum may of
course differ somewhat from those given in private.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015