[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] RE: [IFWP] Re: Register.com and the Testbed charges effect
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:34:30 +0200 , Roberto Gaetano
>Richard Sexton wrote:
> >email@example.com wrote:
>> >I'd say this is a pretty clear determination of the effects NSI's
>> >prepayment requirement is going to have on its new and future
>> >prospective registrars.
>> Where were you 6 months ago when it seemed like I was the only one on
>> firstname.lastname@example.org advocating no prepayment???
>The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs. "prepayment no",
>but "prepayment yes for some and no for others".
>It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is
>not a level field for competition.
More like this should not be an issue imposed by the registry or
ICANN, but a decision each registrar should make. The registry should
not penalize or charge registrars for cancellations provided they do
not excessively exceed the normal averages for non-pay cancellations.
Lets face it, the registry has EXTREMELY little cost involved for
inserting and then removing that entry (I'd venture to say none at
all). Let the registrars decide what is the best model for them and
their target markets. The registrar that sets up a no prepay secure
email interface for ISPs to funnel new registrations through will see
an influx of millions of dollars of registrations from the ISPs that
are tired of dealing with NSI, and are awaiting a registrar that will
meet their needs.
CORE? Is anyone listening? Fight the prepay requirement, and the
business could be yours. (I'm not asking register.com, they were
already asked, and they obviously failed to do so).
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: email@example.com Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.