Re: [ga] New contracts

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Same.  NSI/Verisign have already said that they would like an
extension.  I would be amazed if the USG disagreed is NSi and ICANN
agree to a 2 month extension.  So all that leaves is whether the ICANN
BoD will agree to ask for an 2 month extension.

I would hope that the DNSO Names Council will recommend to the BoD
that such an extension is desirable.

Before asking the NC to support a two month extension, it is worth
remembering that if the draft Verisign/ICANN proposal is not agreed by April
1, the current contract will apply and Verisign must divest themselves of
either the Registry or Registrar function.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts


> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:15:34 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 08:19:01PM +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> >> This will simply mean that
> >> the operating cost of a registration in .org will be substancially
higher
> >> than .com, because the registry (or the registrars) have to check the
> >> qualifications of the subscriber.
> >
> >Maybe, maybe not.  At this point I think that the discussion of
> >potential .org policies is a red herring -- we have a year and a half to
> >talk about it, and there are lots of potentially highly desirable
> >outcomes to that -- .org could, as a result of a public process, be
> >completely open.  It could explicitly support individuals.  A
> >registration in .com could prevent a registration of the same name by
> >the same entitiy in .org.  There are lots of possibilities, and we have
> >a long time to discuss it.
>
> I agree that the *.org status is a red herring and not crucial to the
> proposed contract.  The two major policy issues are:
>
> a) Removing the requirement for Verisign to separate ownership of its
> registry and registrar businesses.
> b) Giving Verisign a "presumptive"right of renewal to *.com for ever.
>
> >Here's the real choice, as I see it:
> >
> >Old:
> >
> >    NSI divests the registrar business, and keeps the registries for
> >    .com/net/org until 2007; in 2007 there will be a rebid, but NSI has
> >    a tremendous inside track on winning that bid *for all three
> >    registries* (as I read the contract, it presumes that the three are
> >    bid as a unit).  To simplify, this choice is that NSI keeps the
> >    three registries indefinitely, but can't run a registrar.
>
> I think one should not overlook what pressures having to rebid for
> *.com will bring on Verisign.  We are not just talking about whether
> they keep it, but how much they will be charging to do it, and what
> performance standards are required.
>
> If one gives Verisign a presumptive right to renewal then you are
> effectively waving goodbye to any possible fee reductions in future.
>
> >> Well, this all shows, IMHO, that to rush a decision is probably not
> >> the best thing to do.  I do expect a lively debate, and a lot of
> >> comments, and personally I am in favour of providing enough time for
> >> it.
> >
> >If the USG, NSI, and ICANN all agree to say a 2 month extension, as has
> >been suggested, I agree that it would be a good thing.
>
> Same.  NSI/Verisign have already said that they would like an
> extension.  I would be amazed if the USG disagreed is NSi and ICANN
> agree to a 2 month extension.  So all that leaves is whether the ICANN
> BoD will agree to ask for an 2 month extension.
>
> I would hope that the DNSO Names Council will recommend to the BoD
> that such an extension is desirable.
>
> >But I don't
> >think it can be counted on.  Moreover, a delay is good for NSI, and not
> >so good for ICANN -- NSI has more time to find a good deal for the
> >registrar business, which weakens ICANN's negotiating position.
>
> I think any weakening would be minor at most.  I think it would be
> very bad for ICANN to agree to the proposed changes with less than
> four weeks of consultation.
>
> >> We have lost already so many chances to count (see, for instance, the
> >> lukewarm support of some WG results without even proposing something
else)
> >> that we cannot avod to take a position on this.
> >> Otherwise people will start seriously questioning why at all we need a
DNSO
> >> at all.
> >
> >On the contrary.  I think this discussion is exremely valuable to the
> >directors, some of whom are indeed following it very closely.
>
> That is a pleasant surprise.  Does anyone know how many of the 19
> Directors subscribe to this list?
>
> >At this point it seems to me that the substance of the decision
> >revolves around two points:  1) the issue of registrar-registry
> >separation, and 2) two different competition models:
>
> Yep.
>
> >    a) competition between TLDs.  In this model TLDs are heavily
> >    marketed by the registries/registry operators, and in this model,
> >    it makes sense to give the registry operators long term contracts,
> >    because they are then motivated to invest the money in the
> >    marketing -- with a short term contract, there is no incentive to
> >    invest in a market that is going to be taken away from you in a
> >    rebid.
>
> I have some doubts about whether *.com registrations are very
> influenced by marketing due to its position as default TLD almost.  I
> am sure marketing will be important to the new TLDs but less so to
> *.com.
>
> >    b) competition between registry operators as service providers.  If
> >    you presume that TLD competition doesn't work, because of customer
> >    lockin and other effects, then the preffered model is one of
> >    frequent rebids of registry contracts, and competition among the
> >    various companies running registries.
> >
> >These are old questions, and we have been debating them for literally
> >years.  Personally, in an ideal world, I strongly prefer both a total
> >separation of registrar/registry and competition model (b).  But NSI's
> >totally dominant position in the market seriously distorts things -- it
> >is going to be very hard for any competitor to put a dent in their
> >position, and without a strong marketing push I don't expect .biz or
> >.info or any of the others (or even .web if it had been approved) to
> >have a significant impact on the dominant position of .com.  So
> >marketing, unfortunately, is very important if we ever want to get real
> >competition going.
> >
> >Both the status quo and the proposed changed agreements are
> >disgustingly sweet deals for NSI.  I have resigned myself to that --
> >they were given a gigantic gift by the USG, and they have milked it for
> >all it is worth, and now they are in a very strong position.  But we
> >have to make decisions based on reality, not fantasy.
>
> Yes to some degree it grates with me that they almost got this billion
> dollar business by accident.  They weren't entrepreneurs who invented
> this stuff - they were just doing a routine registration job for NSF
> which exploded volume wise beyond anyone's expectations.  I have not
> yet come to a firm position on the proposed changes but my initial
> reaction is they greatly favour NSI/Verisign.  I can live with this if
> they also benefit the Internet community but I am still to be
> convinced of this.
>
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html