RE: [registrars] ORG Redelegation

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

I don't really agree to the fullest extent with you guys. I agree its
extra work, and the fact that we have to give our data to a thick
registry sux, but that is not the point here. The point is competition.
Icann was established primarily to ensure that DNS is not the sole
propreitory business of a single monopoly organisation. By giving a
chance to allow other people to operate registrars and registries they
are working towards a goal where dns is not the sole proreity of a
single organisation or a single country for that matter.

I agree I would have desired greater progress considering most
registrars/registries are still concentrated in the US. However it is
progress nevertheless.

Incidentally you are focussing on the negative aspects primarily. Since
the beginning of my membership on this list - majority of the rants have
been primarily about how verisign can take advantage of its position of
being both the registry and the registrar. I for one am ALL FOR ANY
steps that ensures that verisign does not play both the roles, thus
allowing equal access to all registrars. This therefore for me is a
positive step despite the extra work and a couple of other issues

bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Larry Erlich
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:53 PM
> To: Jim Archer
> Cc: Registrars List
> Subject: Re: [registrars] ORG Redelegation
> 
> 
> I agree with Jim. Thanks for taking the
> time to write this. 
> 
> As far as "How did we let this
> happen?". I would assume that some of the more active
> members on this list either aren't business people, or
> they work for large registrars where it isn't going to
> be their problem to implement or take care of the details
> of any changes. They money or time spent won't be coming out
> of their pocket. Additionally, some of the larger registrars 
> may have an interest in creating barriers to entry into the 
> domain name business. Something like this is just another 
> barrier, like the recently removed 100k bonding. (I can't 
> imagine that registrars with a large reseller base are happy 
> about that being dropped since it makes it easier to be a registrar.).
> 
> I shouldn't have, but I assumed that other registrars
> (who had more time than I did) had already tried in vain
> to prevent something like this from happening. But apparently 
> many of those that could have complained had other interests 
> that they were pushing with ICANN.
> 
> I would propose at this point that we push for
> a delay in the transition to the new .org registry.
> 
> Larry Erlich
> 
> http://www.DomainRegistry.com
> 
> 
> Jim Archer wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, now that I had my rant, let me try to articulate my 
> concerns a bit 
> > more clearly.  And maybe toss in a bit more rant as well.
> > 
> > After participating in the ORG transition conference call 
> with PIR, I 
> > see that the registrars are being burdened with a 
> tremendous amount of 
> > work. We need to test our RRP with the Afilias RRP and make changes 
> > if/when it does not work correctly.  In 2003 we have to 
> migrate over 
> > to EPP with ORG becoming a thick registry.  Of course, this 
> means we 
> > further lose control of our customer data.
> > 
> > We need to review and execute more agreements, make more 
> deposits, do 
> > more engineering, take another OTE test (even though we are 
> all active 
> > on ORG and have been forever), change our marketing all during the 
> > holiday season and all by January 1st.
> > 
> > In return for all this, who benefits?  We sure don't.  PIR, 
> although 
> > being a non-profit, is still charging the same price as 
> Verisign did, 
> > $6.00.  For some reason the new for profit registries can 
> price lower 
> > than PIR!  This entire change over is going to cost us a tremendous 
> > amount of time and money for absolutely no gain.
> > 
> > Does the industry gain anything? Not at all.  Who really 
> cares who the 
> > ORG registry is. If anything, the industry might lose.  
> Verisign did a 
> > fine job with the ORG domain. Does the general public gain 
> anything?  
> > No.  Their ORG domains will work no better than they did 
> before (and 
> > hopefully no worse). Although PIR plans to do a lot of 
> marketing for 
> > ORG and promotion of it, I don't see this as benefiting domain 
> > holders.  Nor does it benefit us.  ORG has been around 
> forever.  Its 
> > not as if its a new concept to promote.
> > 
> > How did we let this happen?  When are we as a group going 
> to start to 
> > promote our own interests aggressively?  With each passing month we 
> > lose a bit more control over how we do business.  There seems to be 
> > new requirements added frequently, but none that benefit our bottom 
> > line.  We need an advocate!
> > 
> > ICANN has not done a great job with the Internet and 
> perhaps we should 
> > leverage the fact that their contract is up for renewal soon to 
> > pressure them into making some changes that will actually 
> benefit the 
> > industry for a change.  We fund 40% of their budget and what great 
> > change has ICANN done to improve the industry lately?  They 
> threatened 
> > to sue Verisign Registrar because they had about 17 erroneous whois 
> > entries.  Woo Hoo, that's a good use of resources!  They raised our 
> > fees.  They took ORG away from Verisign and assigned it to 
> PIR, making 
> > more work for us with no benefit to anyone. They dragged all their 
> > members all over the globe in the name of being politically 
> correct, 
> > but accomplished little at these meetings.  Enough is enough.  If a 
> > commercial enterprise was run this way, they would go under. This 
> > waste has to stop; no one is benefiting from any of this nonsense.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > --On Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:44 PM -0500 Jim Archer 
> > <jarcher@registrationtek.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > What a pain!!!!!
> > >
> > > We have to do a new OTE test, we have to migrate to EPP, 
> it will be 
> > > a thick registry!
> > >
> > > Is there any point to this?  I wonder if we should bother.
> > >
> > > ******************************
> > > Jim Archer
> > > CEO
> > > http://www.registrationtek.com
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>