At 10:13 PM 4/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
So explain how any of this recent bit has acted to foster competition?
Giving party A a competitive edge would both hinder competition and
act to the detriment of competitors; the two are not mutually exclusive.
Bill Lovell
>Let me add: We understand perfectly that this situation is not ideal, but
>it is temproary, and two months is a short time. There will be enouhg
>glitches getting this test going that we do not expect it to give anyone a
>competitive edge. Those who come after will learn from it without going
>through all the pain. As you know, a number of the provisions concerning
>NIS and pricing are likely to change after the test.
>
>
>I don't want to sound cavalier, but as the Justice Department has often said
>with regard to Microsoft in particular and competition in general, our job
>is to foster competition, not to protect competitors.
>
>Esther
>
>
>At 02:02 PM 26/04/99 -0700, Chris Oakes wrote:
>>Hi Esther and Mike --
>>
>>Writing to see if ICANN has responded, or wants to respond, to the
>>complaints of Jeff Field over the testbed period.
>>
>>
>>He forwarded me a copy of a mail he says he sent to you as well as the DOC.
>>
>>Any reaction? Per usual, I'm on the Wired News news deadline.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>CHris
>>
>>
>>><--- start copy of email --->
>>>
>>>Mike (and Ms. Dyson),
>>>
>>>Thank you for your reply. I and everyone here at NameSecure.com are also
>>>looking forward to an open and competitive marketplace for domain names.
>>>In that regard...
>>>
>>>Perhaps I was not clear about our concerns as to the *severely* detrimental
>>>effect the testbed period as currently planned could have on not only our
>>>company but all 29 of the post-testbed registrars. Please permit me take a
>>>stab at it again...
>>>
>>>As I understand things going forward, the testbed period begins Monday, the
>>>26th and is scheduled to last 60 days. During the 60 days (which will
>>>undoubtedly last longer) Network Solutions will be charging anyone that
>>>registers a name through them $70. They are, according to the documents,
>>>obligated to charge this legacy fee during the length of the testbed
>>>period. The five testbed registrars, however, may charge any price they
>>>wish. Presumably, they could even give it away for free and/or bundle the
>>>registry fee in with services (please correct me if I'm wrong about any of
>>>these assumptions).
>>>
>>>Assuming the above scenario, that means that during the testbed period,
>>>customers of NameSecure.com will be forced to pay the $70 fee. Now, one
>>>thing you could say to us is, "You will not have to register your
>>>customer's domain names through Network Solutions any longer. You could
>>>now register the names through one of the 5 testbed registrars." And to
>>>that I would say, "You're right. We do have that choice. However, all of
>>>our automated back-end systems have been designed to work with Network
>>>Solution's business processes. For us to change all of that for a 60-day
>>>period of time (we will ourselves be a registrar after the 60 days) would
>>>require an *enormous* amount of time, effort and money. It would force us
>>>to divert all of our resources away from our efforts to become a
>>>registrar." I don't believe you could truly expect us to do that. Please
>>>correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>
>>>So, assuming that we are not forced to change all of our back-end systems,
>>>what potential position does that leave NameSecure.com in? It leaves us in
>>>a position of our customers having to pay a $70 registration fee while at
>>>the same time one of the testbed registrars is giving it away for free or
>>>at cut-rate prices. Our business could dry up to a trickle during the
>>>60-day testbed period. By the end of the 60 days, we could be either out
>>>of business or severely crippled. I'm sure that it is not your intention
>>>to drive the 29 accredited post-testbed registrars out of business during
>>>the 60-day period, however, as the plans to go forward currently stand, it
>>>could happen. Let me try to be even clearer about this...
>>>
>>>Let's say you have a town with ten gas stations in it. And you say, "For
>>>the next 60 days, five of you can sell gas for 50 cents a gallon, but the
>>>other five have to charge 1 dollar." Obviously, I, and I'm sure you,
>>>wouldn't want to be one of the stations that has to charge a buck. But
>>>this is exactly the position that NameSecure.com now finds itself in.
>>>We're one of the stations that is going to for at least 60 days charge a
>>>buck while the testbed registrars can charge 50 cents (or give it away for
>>>free). And as you know, in Internet time, 60 days is a long long time. We
>>>will do everything we can to make sure this plan does not go forward under
>>>this scenario. But...
>>>
>>>I believe there is a simple answer to all this. As I stated before, until
>>>the testbed period is over and until the additional accredited registrars
>>>have had a reasonable chance to test and implement their own connections to
>>>the registry, the current $70 registry fee should be charged by *all*
>>>participants. In addition, no additional services should be allowed to be
>>>bundled in with the registry fee. Then, once everyone has had a
>>>*reasonable* chance to get ready, set a date for everyone to begin
>>>competing on prices and services. This will truly level the playing field
>>>for all and will negate much of the advantage (real or imagined) that has
>>>been handed to the testbed participants. Simple, huh?
>>>
>>>As you know, we've been living under a non-competitive environment in
>>>domain names for a long time. Everyone maintains that the testbed period
>>>is required to "maintain the stability of the Internet." Well, I'm asking,
>>>"What about the stability of the 29 post-testbed registrar participants?"
>>>Will another four months or so of a non-competitive environment really hurt
>>>if it ensures that the post-testbed participants are in a better position
>>>to compete?
>>>
>>>I hope I'm now making this clear for you both. I anxiously await your
>>>response. Time is of the essence. The testbed period starts Monday!
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>>
>>><--- end copy of email --->
>>>
>>
>> Chris Oakes
>> Technology Writer
>> Wired News (www.wired.com)
>> 415.276.8538
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
>Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>1 (212) 924-8800
>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
>
>High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>PC Forum: March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
>
