> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W
> Lisse
>
>
> David,
>
> This is getting bizarreer by the day.
>
Yes, I agree. Confusing, because I don't think everyone is using the same
concepts and definitions. In fact, I know they aren't.
> > Registering a domain and servicing said domain are separate
> > issues. The first is purchasing the rights to control a piece of the
> > relevant name space, the second is a purchase of an ongoing service
> > that incurs recurring costs. There can even be different
> > organizations selling and servicing, one a registration authority
> > and the other a service provider.
>
> What makes you think that one can "purchase" a domain name? Or that
> you need to "purchase" rights to control your own name space?
Currently, you can't. And I'm not really claiming that domain names -should-
be purchased, just that they could. The possibility of an economic
transaction demonstrates that there is a transferrable right there.
> In case you didn't know, like most of the contributors to this debate
> don't seem to, the Internet is a network of "NETWORKS". In other words
> you connect your OWN network to some others. And ONLY for the
> technical side of this was the Domain Name System developed.
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, I understand this. I run a rather small network, some of it is owned by
Speco, some of it is owned by me, and some of it is equipment and services
purchased from other organizations. The only mechanism I have for
identifying this administrative grouping, and advertising it to the outside
world is the speco.com domain name. Speco.com is valuable to us. It is
potentially valuable to others, too. A representative of another Speco
offered to buy speco.com, we could have transferred the right to use the
name to them for monetary consideration, but we didn't.
There is a transferrable right, it can (doesn't have to be) be part of an
economic transaction.
>
> > There is precedent for this, that is the way the root has been
> > handled. The only difference is that the transfer of rights to the
> > namespace was done without exchanging money.
>
> This is nonsense. There has never, ever, been a transfer of
> rights. Postel was running around with a notebook in the beginning,
> then one registry and now only because of the growth are we looking
> at shared registries.
But it was Postel's notebook, wasn't it? And wasn't the service that he
provided usefull, people agreed to use it, and because of that it had value
to them?
And I suspect that Postel did control the right to make entries in that
notebook, that he didn't just let anybody make entries willy-nilly. When
that notebook got full, it became an index to entries in other notebooks.
And instead of trying to maintain all the notebooks himself, he delegated
the right to make entries in those other notebooks to someone else. This was
a transfer of rights. What made Postel special is that he didn't make money
part of the transaction, he did it as a public service.
> And, of course because there is money in it, it's actually obscene how
> much money one can make from doing nothing (annual fee for not
> deleting an entry), the registrars have developed a feeding frenzies.
This is part of the point that I was trying to make. There is no reason that
there has to be an annual fee to keep an entry in a notebook. Once the entry
is made, there is no reason why it can't just sit there. It seems a bit like
extortion to continuously charge for not deleting the name.
If that entry is used by someone to provide a service, then that service is
something that might be charged for on a continuing basis. Keeping the the
entry does -not- have to be tied to the provision of name resolution
service.
> Personally I think registrars are parasites, but as long as anyone has
> a choice between registering directly (which requires some capacity
> building) or through a registrar ($$$) I couldn't give a dead rat's
> fuzzy behind (Who wrote that quote?).
Here is where I think I'm not getting the point across. I'm talking about a
different separation of functions than the one that is commonly referred to
as Registry/Registrar. The way it is defined now, the registry both controls
the notebook and provides the continuing service. (name resolution service).
The Registrar is a sales agent for the Registry.
There is no reason why what we commonly refer to now as a registry has to
both control the notebook and provide the service. Of course, service
providers can have sales agents or resellers if they wish, but that is
entirely their business and almost irrelevant to anything else.
>
> > How are the rights to a portion of a namespace valued? Well, its
> > based on utility. I can sell you rights in the .doofus domain, but I
> > doubt that you would pay very much for them, as the utility is
> > pretty low. This is not true, however, of the legacy namespace, as
> > the universal use of the space means that it has a high utility, and
> > considerable value. The shenanigans that people go through to lay
> > claim to a piece of that space are an illustration of that utility,
> > and of the perceived value.
>
> That's something totally different. Of course you can sell the rights
> to your domaim. You just don't have to purchase it in the first place.
>
I think we are closer than it appears. I would like to see the whole system
function more like the root has always been handled. And no, I don't think
money necessarily has to be involved. The fact that these all -could- be
economic transactions only helps to clarify the underlying concepts, at
least for me.
David Schutt
