Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 10:42:25AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > Your figures have a number of flaws.  They assume a from-scratch
> > development of a stand-alone proprietary registry.  In fact, of
> > course, the most likely case is that the registry would be an
> > incremental addition to an already existing facility with 24x7 NOC
> > etc.
> 
> Now where are you going to find an existing NOC that's going to give you
> their sunk-cost for free?

The "existing NOC" would bid on being a registry.  They already have 
their sunk cost for free.  Any large ISP could support a registry on 
their existing infrastructure.  There is, in fact, a huge amount of 
overlap in the infrastructure for a registry and the infrastructure 
for an ISP.

> > Furthermore, even given the pure stand-alone development, your
> > figures are highly inflated.  I agree that in general people costs
> > are frequently underestimated, but you go very, very far in the other
> > direction...
> 
> When was the last time you priced out commercial software development
> work in the SF Bay Area?

Maybe a year and a half ago -- the CORE RFP, in fact. 

[...]

> > > Yes, and who is running it and what is the cost of that data center
> > > context?
> >
> > The server is maintained in an educational institution, I believe;
> > most of the cost of the data center operations and infrastructure
> > are already covered.
> 
> In other words, it is stealing infrastructure from other projects, or
> borrowing surplus infrastructure from them. That it is an educational
> institution means that they are not, by definition, under cost
> control/management. Plus, they have tons of free/slave labor, in the
> form of grad-students. That solution does not scale well.

Most of root servers and .com/.net/.org servers are run on that
basis.  Is that sufficient scaling for you?

[...]

> > Willie Black developed the registry software for Nominet in his spare
> > time; the original contract for the CORE SRS was $700,000, but the
> > CORE SRS was designed to handle the .com load, and that included all
> > development costs, not just software.
> 
> I have yet to see the CORE project deliver on its promised goods and
> services. Where is the code?

The code was developed; a running registry was being tested; support 
was in place.  But the whole thing was put in mothballs because the 
TLDs never went in the root, and you can't keep a support structure 
going with no cash flow.

It is true that the project did not meet its original milestones --
the first schedule was very aggressive, and there were some slips.  I
worked on the RFP, and I, along with many others, felt that the
schedule was too aggressive; we were right.  But there were political
considerations in specifying that schedule, and sometimes politics
takes precedence over reality or common sense. 

The code as originally developed depended on a commercial base
(Oracle); when it became clear that there was going to be
(euphemistically speaking) a little breathing room before the TLDs
went in the root some of the CORE registrars re-engineered part of it
on an open-source platform.  That was done in-house, and I didn't
follow that development much.  Siegfried Langenbach's company did
most of that work, as far as I know -- I guess he has some good
coders on staff... 

> > > A sanitized version of that offering is available at
> > > <http://download.dnso.net/dox/politicks/IDNRS.pdf>
> >
> > In general, I agree that people frequently underestimate labor costs,
> > but you would do very well indeed, if you could sucker someone into
> > that.  Eg: 2856 hours for a data modeler -- that's 1.5 years,
> > full-time.  This is *not* a complicated database...
> 
> Read the spec again, there is a lot of work involved in the supporting
> accounting infrastructure and other support systems. It is NOT simply
> the registry database. If you think it is so easy then I suggest that
> you do it and publish the DDL, along with the Data Dictionary, for the
> whole thing. If you do it and it works, I'll get you paid for it. Don't
> forget the trigger code, in Oracle8 PL/SQL.

So let's see -- you are going to add the billing and business 
support database (completely standard items) and you are going to 
take 1.5 man-years to do it?

In any case, the point remains that there are existence proofs of 
systems that do this -- we needn't look at it from a theoretical 
point of view.

> > > > You are vastly overestimating the value of competition at the
> > > > registry level.
> > >
> > > As I think that you are totaly mis-understanding how
> > channel marketing
> > > works. Channel marketing is not competition. Only
> > registries are true
> > > competition. Channel markets are only a means of leveraging
> > the work of
> > > others, for the benefit of the channel operator.
> >
> > Proof by buzzwords?
> 
> Those are no more buzzwords than ADR is.

The point is that mentioning a buzzword doesn't prove anything --
it's a case of what is more formally known as "the fallacy of the
argument from authority".  The question isn't whether the buzzwords
mean anything; the question is whether you understand them and apply
them correctly. 

Someone theorizes that bumblebees can't fly; bumblebees fly; therefore
their theory is... 

> It is clear that you do not have a business background.  Might I
> suggest "The Portable MBA in Marketing" ISBN 0-471-19367-4.  For some
> basic business introduction for you. 

Obviously you learned a lot from the book.  I'll check it out right
away. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain