[wg-c] Re: Importance of the Registry

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Ivan:
The fact of the matter is, we don't really disagree.
Your criticisms of registry-registrar integration are criticisms of the NSI
monopoly situation. Certainly all the problems that you talk about are
inevitable when there is only one gTLD registry.

The points I am making are simple:
1) There can be competing registries, lots of them.
2) Some of them can be shared and some of them can be proprietary. Both models
have advantages and disadvantages and both should be authorized.
3) If there is a competitive market at the registry level, then the issue of
whether registry and registrar are integrated is to be settled by voluntary
business arrangements. Registry/registrar separation need not and should not be
"hardwired" into place in all cases by regulation or ICANN contract.

If you really disagree with these points, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

A few minor reactions below.

Ivan Pope wrote:

> 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).

Both of these criticisms are only valid if there is one gTLD registry. In both
cases, the NSI monopoly is your example. Thus, the arguments simply don't apply
to a future situation of multiple gTLDs in a mixed (shared / proprietary) model.

> 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

Then I take it you agree with me that additional shared registries should be
authorized to run new gTLDs. And if the non-shared registries do not offer
favorable terms to registrars, they're going to have a real marketing problem in
a competitive environment, aren't they? And if they make customers pay for
things they don't want, they're not going to attract many new customers, are
they?

> > Shared registration is a compulsory intermediation scheme.
> > It's a way for ICANN toextract 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.

These are simply the current facts about ICANN accreditation.

> 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

Ivan, we need to look beyond the current situation. No one is taking the
position that the NSI monopoly should be retained, and it is highly unfair for
you to even suggest that, as you do above.

> don't seem to want to. Wonder why? That's the real power of the market, not
> an artificial monopoly.

Exactly what I am advocating. If customers have the power to go direct but
don't, then their use of a registrar is voluntary.

> > 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.

Again, you are supporting my position. If there is a single shared registry
system administered by ICANN the possibility for software innovation and
improvement will be limited.

> 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.

A new NSI-type situation will not develop as long as there is a workable number
of ew registries competing against it.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/