[wg-c] Importance of the Registry

[Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>]

With the greatest of respect to Milton, I would suggest that if he had spent
the last few years actually settin up Registries, running a domain name
company and dealing with facts on the ground, he would not and could not
come up with such a theory.

> It seems obvious to me that a company that sets up the 
> software required to accept
> registrations from intermediaries (registrars) could also 
> easily accept
> registrations from end users themselves. Thus, it is the 
> registry that is the basic
> service provider.

Well, the Registry is the basic service provider insofar as it controls the
key or monopoly resource. However, the fact that it does control a monopoly
resource mitigates hugely against it also being the supplier to the end user
of registration services. For two reasons: either the Registry is the only
provider of these services, in which case it has no incentive whatsoever to
provide any levels of service or of price competitiveness (pace Network
Solutions, I've spent the last five years having to accept what they want to
give me at the price that they offer - which is to say not much). Or, the
Registry competes with the Registrars who resell its services, in which case
the Registry has a huge advantage and can effectively structure its pricing
and support to attempt to put the Registrars out of business, or at least
get them to toe the line (pace Network Solutions, who have spent the last
five years doing whatever they want to damage my business whenever it suits
them, and not caring at all about it).
There is a more pertinent point to the end user, i.e. the client, the
customer, the actual buyer of these service. If the Registry is allowed to
control the competitive playing field, then the customer is the looser. They
loose on service and price grounds every time. If the Registry is controlled
and has a range of competing Registrars, then the customer has a choice
every time. And, from the situation in the UK where there are now over 1000
Registrars, it is a system that works and works very very well. You can get
a domain name here in the UK for cost price, or you can pay a much higher
price and get extra services. But what you don't have to do is pay for
services that you don't want (pace Network Solutions where my customers have
been forced to pay for support and billing for years - support and billing
that is essentially useless to most of them as it is North American support
in North American hours of business at long distance phone call prices).

> Shared registration is a compulsory intermediation scheme. 
> It's a way for ICANN to
> extract taxes from domain name registrations and to regulate 
> domain names. You pay
> them a $2500 application fee and a $5000 annual accreditation 
> fee, and promise to
> pay them $1 a domain name, and they "bless" you as accredited.

Well, we can all get paranoid, and we can read things as we like. I don't
trust ICANN, but it is open to democratic control in the longer term.
Nominet started off in the same way - a 'selected' board that I distrusted
and raved about. However, over the last three years (yes, we now have three
years of operational experience with our system), it is clear that we have
the best of all worlds. Not a perfect system, but the best I have seen in
the world (and don't forget that NetNames's business is dealing with all the
Registries in the world, so we actually know what we are talking about).

> The importance of the registry, and the relative 
> insignificance of the registrar, is
> evident with a little bit of thought. 

This is a classic North American line. Try telling that to our customers
when they have a problem in the middle of NSI's night. Or to someone who
doesn't read English (pace NSI's Web site). Or who doesn't want to pay for a
long distance phone call. Or who doesn't actually have Internet access. The
Registrars are the facts on the ground, they are the trusted local
companies. They are the ones who are going to be there to support and help
you out. They are the ones who have to take notice of you. They are the ones
who don't treat you like dirt. 

>Customer service isn't trivial, either, 
> but all registrars do
> to service customers is get information and action from a 
> registry. They are
> intermediaries. If customers want intermediaries, fine. If 
> they don't.....?

Again, a classic theoretical and in this case North American viewpoint. I
suggest you try actually running a business where the customers have the
power of veto over you. All NetNames customers could go direct, but they
don't seem to want to. Wonder why? That's the real power of the market, not
an artificial monopoly.

> Incidentally, one unobserved side effect of the compulsory 
> intermediary model is
> that the software for the interface is a monopoly, also. 
> Every registrar must use
> NSI's proprietary software, which it claims to have spent $25 
> million on. <guffaw>

This is an artificial constraint by NSI in its attempt to retain control of
the market. Nominet uses a very simple secure TAG system which requires very
little on the part of the Registrar and is simple to build into the
Registrar's own system. Which is of course what happens.

> Incidentally, isn't the annual cost for a domain name 
> registration in dot UK, a
> shared registry, MORE than NSI's evil, monopolistic $35 per 
> year? I look forward to
> your spin on that one, Kent.

Nominet is about to reduce its price per year to UK£2.50 (US$4). This from a
relatively tiny Registry in a very small country. The cost if you go direct
to Nominet on the other hand is UK£80, which is considered much closer to
the actual cost including support and procedures.

So, I speak from long hard experience at the Registry and Registar level. I
am not against competition at the Registry level, but do not believe it will
mean much to most end users. I am against allowing a new NSI type situation
to develop with new gTLDs.
Ivan