Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 11:13:11PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 10:24 PM 10/8/1999 , Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Open gTLDs and restricted TLDs both occupy the same name space --
> >approving .ham as an open gTLD precludes its use as a restricted TLD.
> >While in any particular case there might alternatives --
> >.amateur_radio_operator, perhaps -- I want to give restricted TLDs a
> >good shot at the name space before the floodgates open.
> 
> 
> Ok.
> 
> Since it isn't possible to resolve all such "collisions" ahead of time, it 
> sounds as if the core issue is to have a mechanism which determines which 
> category to assign a name to (gTLD versus chartered TLD) and then handle 
> registry assignment independently.
> 
> That is, incrementally partitioning names into the two categories is 
> separate from having to assign registries (and permit registrations.)

That's what I think, yes.

> >It might turn out that there is little interest in restricted TLDs.
> 
> The idea for chartered TLDs has been around for at least 3 years.  My own 
> guess is that they will be quite popular, since there's a degree of "vanity 
> registry" possible.

That is my hope.

> >Given the geographical restriction I made up, some current ccTLD
> >registries will be likely bidders, and will already have running
> >operations.  This would make the economies of scale less important,
> >because they would already be financially stable.
> 
> Interesting point.  The downside is the potential that the regional 
> requirement will limit the amount of real competition that is given to 
> com/net/org.
> 
> >.com/.net/.org will dominate the scene for the next 5-10 years.  I
> >think a smaller group of open TLDs actually stands a better chance of
> >building significant market share.
> 
> Skipping over the real need for incremental (ie, careful) addition of 
> registries, the point you raise suggests KEEPING the pool of competitors 
> small.
> 
> A limited pool means limited potential.  Perhaps the fear you (and others) 
> cite will be true initially -- and I say only perhaps -- but a larger pool 
> means it is more likely that SOME of the competitors will be skilled enough 
> to gain serious market share.

I've been puzzled by this since you mentioned it a few weeks ago.  I
don't see registries doing much marketing at all -- certainly not to
the general public.  But once again, this is a very complex topic -- here 
are some more thoughts:

An open gTLD registries' customers are ICANN and the accredited
registrars.  I believe this will be true for NSI, the registry, as
well: if things go as publicized (big if, of course), NSI will
completely split the registry and the registrar.  If that split
really happens, and the com/org/net registry really is neutral wrt
registrars, then worldnic will be able to register in any of the open
gTLDs, its interests will rapidly diverge from the NSI registry, and
NSI, the registry, will soon be in the position of competing for
business from registrars, just like all the other registries.

And all you will be able to get out of .com will be long contorted
manufactured names, whereas, even with a famous marks rule and some
TM owners buying up every variation on their name, new TLDs will have
a huge amount of "good" names available. 

NSI the registry is going to have to work like hell to counteract 
that, and, ultimately, they have to lose, because they have already 
sold most of their prime real estate.  They will go out to pasture 
and collect renewal fees indefinitely into the future.

New TLDs will always have this advantage over old established TLDs 
(they have disadvantages as well, of course), but they won't have 
this advantage over each other.  Therefore if new TLDs are added at 
a measured rate, new ones will always have a natural competitive 
advantage -- they have good names available.

Ultimately, I see most of the marketing effort coming from the
registrars.  They are the ones that will be trying to find "good"
names for their customers, not the registries: "sorry,
brandenburg.com is not available, but brandenburg.arts is."

> A smaller pool means a smaller potential that some of the pool will have 
> enough business and marketing skill.

Yes, that is a good point.  But  TLDs can't
really go out of business, regardless of how poorly run, as long as
they have more than a handful of names registered in them (.int has
maybe 100 names in it).  So, weak gTLD operators will simply have 
their TLDs taken over by stronger ones.

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