Re: [registrars] ORG Redelegation

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

                       -rwr

> 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.

Sometimes one can only get what they can take. I'd substantially agree with
Bhavin that decreasing the scope of Verisign's monopoly in the namespace
substantially outweighs the costs and troubles that the dotORG redelegation
will require. I'm not a fan of a thick registry either, but its the flavor
of the month and until there are reasonable alternatives, I fear that we're
stuck with it.

The important thing is to recognize that alternatives can be developed and
should receive our support when they happen along (or more productively,
registrars should start work now to ensure that these alternatives to happen
along.)


"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog


----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>
To: "Jim Archer" <jarcher@registrationtek.com>
Cc: "Registrars List" <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:22 PM
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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------