>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [John Charles Broomfield
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:57:55 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 14 09:57:54 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from manta.outremer.com (manta.outremer.com [206.48.63.51])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28366F005
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:57:54 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (from jbroom@localhost) by manta.outremer.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) id KAA13835;
>Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:02:22 -0400
>From: John Charles Broomfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [ga] Letter from Mike Roberts re: gTLD Constituency
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William X. Walsh)
>Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:02:22 -0400 (AST)
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "William X. Walsh" at Jul 13, 99
>11:53:24 pm
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>William Walsh wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:27:43 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:
>> >William Walsh wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:44:49 -0700, Dave Crocker
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >At 01:25 PM 7/13/99 , Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> >> >For those missing the basis for the attempt at irony, the reference
>> >> >pertains to the decision to require a top-level registry (e.g., the
>> >> >organization holding and controlling .com or the like) to be non-profit,
>> >> >versus permiting it to be for-profit.
>> >>
>> >> Rather than letting multiple gTLDs exist, with different models, and
>> >> letting consumers decide which they prefer.
>> >>
>> >> The difference is that Dave's view doesn't permit anything BUT his
>> >> view, whereas Chris's permits both of them (and others) to coexist.
>> >>
>> >> You decide who is more reasonable.
>> >
>> >Actually both views, apart from being mutually exclusive also dictate =
>> what
>> >may or may not happen to the consumer.
>>
>> They are not mutually exclusive (by the way note that this person is a
>> CORE supporter, and approach his comments from that point of view).
>> The open view from Chris permits the non-profit model to COEXIST. It
>> is CORE who insists the two models cannot coexist. Of course, it is
>> in CORE's interest to do so.
>
>Can you explain to me how Chris (and your) OPEN view would allow any given
>gTLD registry to be at the same time for-profit and non-profit?
>Chris and you advocate that gTLD registries don't have to be non-profit and
>that the commpany running the registry would have a large control over what
>it does with that registry.
>Dave and myself advocate that running a registry should be a non-profit (or
>very VERY small cost+) operation, and that the entity running the registry
>does a bare minimum highly regulated operation.
>
>> >Let's be honest and admit that consumers do NOT check out the business model
>> >behind a TLD, haven't done so in the past, and I really can't see them doing
>> >so in the future. Consumers in general just think that it's good or bad for
>> >their name to have a com/net/org at the end as opposed to having their own
>>
>> That is true with regard to ccTLDs to gTLDs. We are discussing NEW
>> gTLDs here, and I'd like to see evidence on your claim that consumers
>> will not take business models into account. I don't buy it.
>
>I thought you also worked in/for an ISP. If so, haven't you noticed that
>when a customer decides that it DOESN'T want it's local ccTLD choice, then
>in most cases it will want "company.com, really not like "company.org"
>and not quite understand "company.net"? Once it finds that "company.com" is
>taken, only then will it think about "company.net" and/or "company.org"
>(if it's a non-profit organisation, then start the above argument with the
>entity choosing company.org).
>Can you tell me how many of the companies you have dealt with know what NSI,
>NetSol or Network Solutions is?
>A VERY small handful have heard of Internic (Yeah, it's the owner of the
>internet, isn't it? Yeah, it's the guys who register all domain names. Yeah,
>they decide how the 'net is run. Etc...), but generally have a very vague
>idea of what it is/was (what the heck, I'm sure most of us here wonder what
>internic is supposed to be currently).
>
>> >ccTLD. Or in the case of the USA, then the choice is even more limited in
>> >reality, because the choice of "xxx.us" is a non-starter (as we ALL know).
>> >Given this scenario, then consumers are just going to pick amongst a bunch
>> >of potential gTLDs the one that "fits" best their business as they see it
>> >(hey, I'm a law firm, so bloggs.law is what I want... hey, I'm a web
>> >designer, so bloggs.web is what I want... hey I'm in the sport sector, so
>> >bloggs.sport is what I want).
>> >The choice of TLD comes BEFORE finding out what has to be done to go and get
>> >that domain delegated.
>> >The choice, no matter how some people may want to paint it is *NOT* as
>> >follows:
>> >"hey, I like the business model of ".sport", but don't like that of ".law",
>> >so although IAAL (as opposed to IANAL) I will register and promote my law
>> >firm as 'bloggs.sport'"
>>
>> When we have competitive gTLD REGISTRIES, this indeed will be a
>> consideration for many, especially when it comes to past history.
>> People DO share experiences. I'm on a number of lists where people do
>> just that. They will share experiences and make decisions based on
>> their own experience, and the comments from others.
>
>I'll admit to you that adding more gTLD registries changes the game. Your
>arguing that with more gTLD registries, people will know/understand/care
>about who/what is running them and in what way is wishful thinking. Today we
>have 3 gTLDs (some could argue that we have 3 or for more if you count
>".nu", ".to", etc...) and customers make no considerations about what/who is
>behind them when registering. Why should that change?
>-If it DOESN'T change, then having all sorts of different things happeneing
>to you depending on what TLD you chose, is quite unfair.
>-if it DOES change, then finding that all TLDs are governed in a uniform
>stable and globally accepted way just adds to confidence, and leaves the
>consumer to choose which TLD he wants to be under based solely on the merit
>of the interpretation of the combination of letters that make up that TLD.
>
>> Again, you are using ccTLDs vs gTLDs to backup your arguments, this is
>> the worst application of logic I've seen in this thread.
>
>No, the worse application of logic (literally) is assuming that view A
>excludes view B, but that view B can coexist with view A (see below).
>
>> >As has been said before, NSI has made a very good case against Chris's view,
>> >in that registry abuse happens.
>>
>> Oh spare me. You can't compare a commercial registry with NO
>> competition (and the ensuing results) to what would happen in a
>> COMPETITIVE registry environment. And for you to even attempt to do
>> so just shows you have absolutely no intent on discussing this
>> reasonably.
>
>There is only one single moment that competition is *possible*, and it's the
>moment that the consumer chooses under what TLD he will be. The consumer is
>far far far more likely even at that single moment to choose a TLD based on
>the inherent "meaning" of the combination of letters than ANYTHING else.
>I tell you this from the experience of having lived under two regimes where
>the administration of their own ccTLD is a right pain. Before you discount
>the opinion outright saying "oh, but that's comparing it with ccTLDs", let
>me give you the following true example so that you can see what I mean:
>-company located in Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guyanne decides it
> wants its own domain name (it's a bank, and thinks its not serious to have
> all letterhead and managers email addresses as "address@isp"). They decide
> that as they are located in quite a few different departments, the local
> "name.gp" or "name.mq" or "name.gf" is NOT what they want. They DO, however
> want "name.fr", so we check it up and find that "name.fr" is already taken
> (they want to use the initials, because the full name is rather long), so
> they decide to ask for "name-ag.fr" or "nameag.fr" instead (ag standing for
> antilles-guyanne). AFNIC (the organisation running ".fr") receives the
> paperwork, and sends back a message saying that the organisation can NOT
> have "name-ag.fr" or "nameag.fr" and would have instead "name-antilles.fr"
> or "name-guyanne.fr" instead. The company complains loudly, and (as usual)
> gets nowhere. In the end, they grumpily settle for "name-ag.com" (as
> "nameag.com" was already taken). [for anyone who wants to do the numbers,
> check the domain stats for both ".fr" and ".es" and compare them relatively
> to population with the registrations done in countries at similar
> development levels. You will see that in both cases the amount of
> registrations is VERY low, which should mean something I think)
>Under your scenario, this could just as easily have happenened with two
>different gTLDs, as the customer is deciding BEFOREHAND where he wants to be
>parked. The customer does NOT ask about policies, payment, method, etc...
>until he knows what he wants. And he will decide what he wants based on the
>appeal that those letters have to him.
>Now, even given that singular moment of possible competition, the fact of
>the matter is that the one decision is something that is going to live with
>that customer for a VERY long time. Where is the competition there? Even NSI
>admits that changing domain name is something costly, slow and expensive.
>You can setup the most user friendly, cheap, wonderous, free DNS, email +
>web page loads of frills etc... registry that you can think of, and you
>*might* make a boom with the amount of NEW registrations that you get (but
>if the TLD is ".ukgwerfiufv" I don't think you'll get many even so), but
>unless the registry where people are parked currently REALLY screws up
>incredibly badly (and no, the NSI screw-ups come nowhere near that level),
>then the customer is NOT going to migrate his domain. (Why would I throw
>away several hundred $ worth of letter-head, visiting cards, etc, plus screw
>up my existing email addresses, plus throw awy the time & effort involved in
>promoting my old domain name just to save $70/year?)
>
>As the moment of competition is when you register your name, and not when
>you just keep it there, it would be logical for competition to be at the
>registrar level (which is the part that takes care of you registering your
>name), and not at the registry level (which is the part that takes care of
>keeping your name).
>
>Yours, John Broomfield.
>
>P.S. (Boring logical demonstration follows, most can skip it).
>You say that Dave's view excludes Chris's, but that Chris's doesn't exclude
>Dave's.
>If this was correct, then if we accepted Chris's view, we would also be able
>to accept Dave's. So, as we have ALSO accepted Dave's, everything is ok.
>However, in your original premise you say that accepting Dave's view,
>excludes Chris's, so we find that once we have accepted Dave's view, it will
>exclude Chris's.
>As you can see, your assertion is logically flawed.
>The question is pretty simple:
>Are entities allowed to run a registry with high levels of decision making
>as how they go about it and are allowed to make profits at the level that
>they decide and control it the way they want?
>
>The two answers are "yes" or "no". Chris says "yes", Dave says "no".
>About as exclusionary and opposite as you can get. Unfortunately, I honestly
>can't see a reconciliary view between them, and whatever the choice is made,
>the other party will be highly miffed.
>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
