New ORG in real life (Re: [nc-org] Re: Version 3.0 of policy statement

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

Thank you, Elisabeth, for the message below. I find it very helpful to
give us a perspective of how the new ORG could/should look. It makes
more than a lot of sense to keep the future 'real life' in mind, when
we set up a policy. And the experience of the larger ccTLDs (some, if
I am not mistaken, bigger than ORG), which are in part also serving a
restricted registrant base (e.g. in .NL only registered companies and
organizations) is much needed.

Your message made me consider another matter, that I would like to see
included in the policy statement: the application fee. I would
certainly not expect this to be the same amount as that charged for
the commercial TLDs chosen last year. Although I can see why there
must be one (if only to keep ridiculous applications out), it should
be so low that money is not a determining factor in the selection
process. Rather a symbolic application fee, just high enough to limit
the number of applications. If a figure is needed: $1,000? Maybe this
could be added at the end of the policy statement?

As you point out, ORG can make a lot of money. That is another reason
why it is of such importance that the 'operator' is selected based on
a policy that is clear about money matters. I have just come to
realize that, thanks to your message. What can the new ORG do with its
'profit'? Lower the registration fees? Give away (or at a lower price)
domains to organizations in third world countries? Set up a
payment system over the Net that works for those who have no
credit card? Finance governance internet projects (At Large)?

-- 
Marc@Schneiders.ORG

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, at 18:11 [=GMT+0200], Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> 
> 
> When we speak about new dot Org we should size some numbers
> and feasibility conditions.
> 
> Marc wrote:
>   However, there are already some 2,803,000 (plus some
>   45,000 IDN) ORG names in existence... These are spread over the 100
>   plus registrars. This is not a clean slate operation, like .museum.
>   It will be far more difficult to get existing registrars under a
>   policy than new ones.
> 
> It means that VeriSign as Registry gets circa
>          2.8 million * 6USD = 17 million USD
> per annum income for dot Org.
> 
> On the other hand, when we look on big ccTLD Registries, which
> are not for profit, and which are not-Registrars, the similar
> quantity of domain names request for a very well trained staff
> of minimum 50 persons, distributed among techies, accountants, lawyers,
> interface with customers, human resources manager, public relations.
> The raw salary budget for such staff is estimated at no less than
> 50*60 k USD = 3 million USD. Add buildings (1500 square meters),
> computers, connectivity, training, travels, insurances, etc.
> Scalabilty problems of zone file transfers, and subsequent cost.
> 
> What I wish to point out is that the dot Org Registry must be
> quite a huge specialized company to take over the current dot Org
> activities.  How do you figure out any bidding to dot Org ? 
> Who are potential bidders ?
> The bidder is expected to take over the current operations 
> within a very small time (few hours ?), therefore the new company
> must be in place, all staff hired, trained and operational, before
> things happen.
> It will be certainly helpfull to get 5 million USD from Verisign
> to start business, but these 5 million does not seem a lot to me.
> Actually an aside question arises - currently Verisign sells domain
> names for much longer than one year. Is Verisign going to handover the
> money for "unused time" to the new dot Org ? 
> 
> Coming back to dot Org Registry. Either we estimate that a non for
> profit company may emerge all of sudden to bid for dot Org with
> 3 million domain names or we consider it differently. 
> Some of ccTLD Registries started as a cooperatives or not for profit 
> associations, formed of ISPs or Registrars (at that time they 
> could have tens of thousands of domain names, not millions).
> Should we look at such a concept ?
> 
> Elisabeth
> (as usually wondering about implementations ...)
>