RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

The whole idea of registry/registrar splitting is a canard. It was one of
the things offered to delay the introduction of new TLDs. It attempted to
answer the anti-competition rant about failing to allow other registries to
offer TLDs in competition with COM. In addition, NSI was failing miserably
at customer service. The registrar system attempted to say that there is now
competition with NSI. That one no longer has to do business with NSI because
one now has a choice of registrars. Ergo, no new TLDs were required. As a
prophylactic, it failed.

All the registrar system did was create a new layer of registry resellers.
The fundimental provider of service is still the registry and there is still
only one. It is worse because  registrar agreements bind registrars
exclusively to ICANN, preventing them from doing business with non-ICANN
registries, AFAICT. They are still locked into NSI (I don't think that RIPE
supports registrars, the last I heard). Thus, it only presents the
appearance of competition and not the fact. 

What it did do was relieve NSI of many customer service issues by pushing
most of that out to the registrars. What it ALSO does is add yet another
layer of profit margins. Thus increasing the minimal cost of doing business.
Look in your marketing 101 text for channel marketing. It is a very
effective tool. It actually enhanced NSI's position substantially. NSI
actually got ICANN to help them set up their market distribution channels.

BTW, I said most of this at the time it happened. It should be no surprise
to many. Some may disagree ... if it quacks, flies, and swims ... it's a
duck, IMHO.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:25 PM
> To: Mike Roberts
> Cc: Roberto Gaetano; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
> 
> 
> On Fri, 18 May 2001 08:55:43 -0700, Mike Roberts wrote:
> >At 21:03 +0000 5/17/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> >>This is a situation that cannot continue in the future. 
> >>Technological change, commercial/technical solutions, and 
> what else, 
> >>can be put in place by Verisign-the-Registry after consultation (or 
> >>at least full awareness) of Verisign-the-Registrar, and here lies 
> >>the competitive advantage. This is why vertical integration 
> has been 
> >>a no-no since the early days (as Director Kraaijenbrink put well in 
> >>MdR).
> >
> >Roberto -  There are many TLDs with no separation between registry 
> >and registrar(s). There would be a great uproar around the world if 
> >ICANN even attempted to adopt a consensus policy that TLD registries 
> >could not include the registrar function.
> 
> Are we talking gTLDs or ccTLDs?  ICANN at present has no power to
> adopt policies affecting ccTLDs.  If we are talking gTLDs then is it
> not the case that all of the "open" gTLDs do have a registry/registrar
> split?
> 
> Was not one of the new gTLD applications turned down because it did
> not have a registry/registrar split?
> 
> 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