Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:

> Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower registration
> costs for consumers, to name a few . . .

If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue 
would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.  In the 
case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in 
town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced to register 
in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge 
consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes. 
 However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still fixes the 
registry fee.  

Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would 
have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to 
compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but that is no 
different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If you don't 
like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company, 
choose another.  

A great many of the issues driving people crazy today could go away 
with hundreds of TLDs being made available in the USG root.  I doubt 
we will see it because the IP interests will do all they can to prevent it.  

There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a regsitry if there 
are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with the problems 
surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the artificial scarcity of 
TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of 
the internet - the DNS.

All the talk of confusion raised by having a multitude of TLDs is also 
pure FUD.  People have become accustomed to changing area codes 
constantly, as well as having to use more digits in phone numbers, dial 
around codes, etc.  The public would become accustomed to a variety 
of TLD extensions in the same manner and more companies would 
spring up to index them.  

Registries could succeed or fail.  People and companies would then 
have to make changes just as they do when they move and change 
phone numbers or an area code is changed forcing companies and 
individuals to adjust.  It's a pain, but we all do it.  A worse scenario 
would be to not allow new area codes and have an artificial scarcity of 
phone numbers.  I see no difference with the lack of TLDs in the USG 
root, especially when there are thousands of TLDs already in existence, 
many of which actively accept registrations.  It's no longer an 
experiment in the sense that it can be done.  It's been done.  So what is 
ICANN's excuse?

Leah

> 
> Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin
> <jefsey@club-internet.fr> wrote: JFCJM> yes. but what is the need for a
> registrar (as understood today)? JFCJM> jfc
> 
> JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> >>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this namespace
> >>is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business models they employ
> >>represent an innovation, the technology that they use, in many cases,
> >>represent an innovation...the list does go one, but the specifics are
> >>well-documented and not really important to this discussion.
> >>                       -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 


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