Re: [registrars] Please comment CONSENSUS required...

["Ivan Vachovsky" <ivan@abac.com>]

Paul,
Fellow Registrars,

Thanks for the kind request. Here are my comments. Rather long. If you wish
you can skip to the bottom to see a specific proposed text for the Registrar
Constituency resolution separated by *************.

VeriSign can not be blamed for anything. They act as businesspeople. If I
would be the CEO of VeriSign I'd do the same. The only body they are
responsible to is their shareholders and they do have fiduciary duty to
their shareholders to make as much revenues and as much profits as possible.

The story about separating Registrar and Registry operations within VeriSign
is irrelevant as is the story of how much their Registrar pays for the
domain names. Of course they pay the cost. Moving money from the left pocket
to the right is not something we should be concerned about and frankly it is
none of our business.

Again it is not VeriSign to blame fort it. They just do business as usual.

Surprisingly no one is looking at this situation from the most conventional
and most reasonable standpoint. Registry business is the
manufacturing/wholesale of the domain names while the Registrar is the
retailer/reseller.

Every manufacturer/wholesaler knows about the importance of the reseller
channel. The smart ones keep the channel as their most precious asset. The
smart wholesalers never compete with their channel. It is a matter of
survival.

Why than VeriSign wants to compete with its channel. The answer is very
simple - tight supply of names. The free market rules do not apply in
monopoly markets or markets with tight supply. Of course they will compete
with their channel in a monopoly market. If you ask them they don't want the
channel at all. This is the nature of the beast called business - it becomes
nice and smiles when it feels the competition. Otherwise it is ugly beast
and our contracts with VeriSign prove it (but this is another story).

In order to fight the beast the society developed the regulatory agencies to
regulate businesses where the monopoly is inevitable.

Fortunately, we have much better chances with the domain names. It is not
gas, oil, telecommunications or power, which is heavy, hard to move with a
high barrier to entry. It is easy. Our calculations show that $3 to $5
million in funding can easily put new registries and new domains in
business, thus creating competition for the ten year old monopoly .com    44
applicants showed up ready to invest the above amount and to start
operations, in November, 2000. Only 7 got lucky to be selected by ICANN.

Everything will come to its place if there would be 50 + competing top level
domains. Than VeriSign will respect its channel and will never compete with
it. Than the people of Tuvalu can enjoy their own country domain .tv and be
proud of it. Than there will be no secondary and third and forth etc. roots.
Than there will be stability of the Internet. Until than we live in the
Wonderland ruled by ICANN.

" Fury said to a mouse,
That he met in the house,
"Let us  both go to law:  I will
prosecute you.
Come, I'll take no denial;
We must have a  trial:
For really this morning I've
nothing  to do."

Said the mouse to the cur,
"Such a trial, dear Sir,
With no jury or judge,
would be wasting  our breath."
"I'll be judge, I'll  be jury,"
Said cunning old Fury:
"I'll try the whole cause,
and condemn  you to death."'

            Lewis Carroll
            Alice adventures in Wonderland



As far as I know register.com is putting together a proposed memorandum to
be signed by Registrar Constituency. Here is a paragraph I proposed to be
added.

**********************************

xx. More new gTLDs.

ICANN is not serving the Internet community by keeping a tight supply of
general top level domains (gTLD). There is definitely a larger market by all
research, which has been done. By keeping tight supply ICANN is promoting
underground activity like:
  - using country level domain names ccTLD for non-country specific
applications ( example .tv .cc .ws )
  - creating alternative root systems ( example www.new.net )
this undermines the stability and the order in the Internet and effects all
Registrars business.

Registrars are confused. Should they trust ICANN and ICANN endorsed gTLDs
and Registries or should they go with "underground" ones. Bottom line is
that Registrar's prefer to operate in a streamlined environment with
established authorities, rules and protocols rather than in a wild world of
no rules.

We suggest that ICANN does reconsider it's gTLD policy and introduces more
new gTLDs immediately.

*********************************************

Sincerely,
----------------------------------
Ivan Vachovsky,
President
ABACUS America Inc. d.b.a. A+Net
Ste 880, 4660 La Jolla Village Dr.
San Diego, CA, 92122
(858) 558-8522  x 103

www.aplus.net   Internet Services
www.websolo.com   Affordable web hosting
www.names4ever.com  Accredited Domain Registrar
www.paybutton.com   Billing for e-commerce
www.server4me.com  Server co-location
www.fiberia.com   Free e-mail and web services
www.rodopi.com   Billing software for IP services


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>
To: "Registrars List" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 5:35 AM
Subject: [registrars] Please comment CONSENSUS required...


> Fellow Registrars
>
> Today an informal tel conf meeting was held, and thank you all for your
> participation.  During the call a number of issues were raised and a a
> number of concerns were identified.
> The comments have been documented in the attached document and in light
> of the Registrar's Constituency meeting to be held on Saturday
> (Melbourne time) Friday EST, your input is welcomed on the summary
> document attached.
>
> If you have any comments please respond to any of the NC members or to
> Mike Palage.
>
> The next stage will be for the NC face to face meeting here in Melbourne
> on Sunday and if consensus is reached on the report/issues then the NC
> reps will make a report to the Names Council.
>
> Thanks again ... all comments welcomed
>
> Paul
>