RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	Thankfully, the fate of .net and .org is outside our jurisdiction.  WG-C's
charter directs it to examine questions relating to *new* registries (a
subject that, to say the least, we haven't exhausted).  Issues relating to
*existing* registries should be discussed elsewhere.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


At 03:11 PM 3/18/00 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Should we also be talking about spinning .net and .org out into separate
>registries? That would present new business opportunities to operate and
>market names in these gTLDs.
>
> .org should be more attractive, it would seem to me, than it is. There's
>too much confusion right now, and I think NSI adds to it, perhaps
>inadvertedly.  For instance, when a new non profit group, like a group
>focused on protecting kids online launched (real example), they found it
>necessary to register in .com and .net, and .org.  That happened because
>there is no clear marketing distinction between those "brands". (Sorry, but
>bear with me for a moment on this).  
>
>When this group registered "kidsonline.org", to their chagrin, someone
>registered the .com version. OOPS, wasn't about protecting kids, believe me!
>So, lesson learned. When they launched their next non profit group/service,
>they registered all three names, but are merely pointing to the .org site,
>where the content/service is located.
>
>Marketing the distinction between the three isn't in NSI's business
>interest, but if they were separate, it would be in the competitive
>registry's interest... 
>
>Just a thought... Any ideas from others on this? Marilyn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
>Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 4:16 AM
>To: Rick H Wesson
>Cc: wgc
>Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: your mail
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rick H Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
>
>> could you think of a reason that a generic TLD should be chartered and run
>> by a monopoly. Its hard from me to understand why we would take 2 steps
>> back and create more situations which have taken more than 4 years to
>> resolve. The NSI monopoly of the .com .net and .org gTLDs is exactly what
>> I thought we were to avoid.
>
>No. NSI had a monopoly because there were NO other registries in the world
>capable of offering a gTLD. NSI was a monopoly "registry." Many of not most
>of the problems associated with it could have been avoided by authorizing
>new "registries" regardless of whether they were shared or not.
>
>NSI was also a very bad registrar in many respects, but IMHO that was
>primarily because one company was stuck with handling 75% of the world's
>registrations.
>
>New gTLD registries -- such as .biz or .firm -- would introduce competition.
>Differentiated registries would also introduce competition for segments of
>the market. It is simply wrong to say that intergation of the registry and
>registrar functions per se creates a "monopoly." and it is also false as a
>matter of historical record to say that the White and Green Paper processes
>ruled in favor of the shared model for anything but .com. And the shared
>model was chosen for NSI ONLY because it was so dominant. It is not a
>serious problem for new registries with a small market share.
>
>
>
>