RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Jonathan,

I would like to modify your case, just a little. Instead of considering
differing TLDs, because both TLDs may be  on the same registry (NSI,
anyone?). Let's assume differing registries. If one registry has a
corner on the sports name TLD market than switching would do me no good.
This is exactly like the current situation with COM/NET/ORG. The
switching costs would be the same, however.

Milton's point is a very good one, retail businesses move all the time.
Landlords are restrained from price-gouging because of it. Yes, there
are costs. but it does not even come close to a monopoly situation
unless there is no place for the business to move to. One registry
owning all the available retail space in town, is a local monopoly only
until another registry starts building out new store-fronts.

In meat-space, moves are handled by address forwarding mechanisms and
the like. This is the exactly same as redirectors and forwarding
mechnisms in cyber-space. With proper planning it is not a big deal in
either space. Ergo, the lock-in argument is FUD as long as mobility
enhancement mechnisms are afforded the domain operator.

MHSC.COM changed upstream providers last year. This meant a complete
renumber. We also built out MHSC.NET and transfered primary NS to
MHSC.NET, along with many other NET functions and our entire
infrastructure. The only problems were indecisiveness on my part,
regarding direction. This involved a number of servers in two states.
Every ISP has done this at least once. It's a PITA and something to be
avoided, but it isn't as onerous as some would have you believe. ISP's
are supposed to know what they're doing.

If I had an alternative to NSI, I would embark on that journey tomorrow
morning and so would a number of others. In fact, MHSC is prepared to
build such a competitive registry. This is how much I don't like the
DDRP and the sword that NSI holds over the heart of MHSC.

--------------------
Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
http://www.mhsc.com/
mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
--------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 6:50 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Kent Crispin; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do
>
>
> 	I think Ross's response to my post is well-taken.
> Price regulation of any
> sort is always messy and costly.  Nor, I think, is it really
> sufficient to
> require that folks operate on a strict cost-recovery basis
> (that is, that
> they charge prices not in excess of cost -- really a
> different version of
> price control).  That approach too would rule out most of the
> scenarios
> Ross suggests.  In the end, the best answer is to try and
> make sure that
> folks don't have monopoly power (and thus the ability, absent
> regulation,
> to extract monopoly rents) in the first place.
>
> 	But -- controversial as this may be -- I think the only
> way to do that is
> via free entry into the TLD namespace.  If I can switch
> easily from .sports
> to .athletics, then .sports can exercise little market power.
>  If it's easy
> to establish .athletics, then, when the .sports registry
> starts to gouge,
> someone will in fact start .athletics (and Milton's proposal
> should address
> the problem of lock-in and switching costs).  But if there *is* no
> .athletics, or anything else like it, and there's no easy way
> to create it,
> then .sports has market power corresponding to the degree that it's a
> better TLD for certain registrants than any other, and it can use that
> power to extract inefficient rents.
>
> Jon
>
>
> Jonatghan Weinberg
> weinberg@msen.com
>
>
> At 10:41 AM 8/29/99 -0400, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >> Kent's formulation suggests that -- just maybe -- many of
> us might agree
> >>on a system in which a registry might or might not be operated on a
> >>strictly cost-recovery basis, but *all* registries would be
> subject to
> >some
> >>sort of meaningful limitation on their ability to raise prices.
> >>(Obviously, formulating such a limitation isn't
> straightforward, and some
> >>folks have suggested to the list that it can't be done.
> Yet I wonder.)
> >>What do people think?
> >
> >
> >While I don't disagree with the intent of your proposal
> (let's make sure
> >that sld holders don't get screwed by a money grubbing
> registry) - I have
> >serious reservations about the application of such a policy.
> >
> >Several scenarios immediately ran through my head would be
> "against the
> >rules" in a price increased controlled situation...
> >
> >- new TLD comes online, registry offers free addresses for a
> fix period of
> >time to increase adoption, followed by a price increase to a
> reasonable
> >level sometime later....
> >
> >- registry finds that initial price determination was not
> realistic and a
> >price increase is necessary to ensure minimal profitability on the
> >registries behalf.
> >
> >- registry decides that his/her TLD is not a price sensitive
> commodity, but
> >rather a value based service that commands a premium dollar
> >
> >- registry notices seasonal demand fluctuates and implements a market
> >demand based price system that charges less during slow
> periods and more
> >during busy periods
> >
> >- registry possesses an extremely unique TLD that holds very limited
> >interested to the larger market, but an unusually high level
> of interest
> >for a specific portion of the market and decides to
> implement an auction
> >based process that allows the market to actually determine
> the price of
> >sale...
> >
> >All of these fall outside of the typical pricing models that we have
> >encountered thus far (x$ for y time period, plus renewals)
> and would like
> >become foregone avenues of pursuit under your proposal...
> >
> >Obviously, this isn't a binary decision, but gven the option
> of fix-price
> >vs. registry determined price, I would have to back a
> registry determined
> >price and let the market sort out the dead models.
> >
> >-RWR
> >
> >
> >
>