Hi Roberto,
I'm in agreement with the previous opinions by Danny, Karl
and Michael that
there may be situations that warrant direct distribution of
services from
registries to registrants. You and I are on the same
wavelength regarding
the pitfalls of opening up such a distribution model for all
registries. The
problem that I see is VeriSign, PIR, Afilias, NeuLevel, etal
would lobby
ICANN for such rights, based on maintaining a level playing
field.
Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto icann.org>
To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <mikepalage.com>; "'Nevett, Jonathon'"
<jnevettnetworksolutions.com>; "'Danny Younger'"
<dannyyoungeryahoo.com>;
<gagnso.icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:40 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] GNSO Council: Taking 21 months to arrive
at bad decisions
>I am mostly a listener on this topic, and I am very
interested in hearing
> the different opinions.
> Incidentally, it is refreshing to read something on
this list that is
> related to DNS issues.
>
> I have a comment related to Mike's post below:
>
>> Obviously if a registry goes direct there is the
need for
>> scrutiny to make sure that a registry does not
abuse its
>> position as a sole source provider. However, as has
been
>> demonstrated in the case of .EDU, .GOV, .MIL and
.INT,
>> consumers are not being harmed even though they are
I some
>> cases paying higher per domain name registrant
costs than
>> equivalent registrants in the .COM space.
>
> There are striking differences to me between .EDU,
.GOV, .MIL, .INT, and
> .COM.
> The first one is that everybody qualifies for the
latter, and very few for
> the former. This is because there are strict rules for
the former, and
> none
> for the latter. Connected with this, is the fact that
the business model
> is
> quite different. I am not a registrar, but if I were
one I would doubt
> that
> I would rely too much on registrations under .INT to
ensure income for the
> company ;>). This simply means that in some cases
the registry-registrar
> model would make, IMHO, little sense. And maybe .MUSEUM
is, among the
> ICANN-introduced TLDs, another example.
> However, I think that we have to be extremely careful
in dropping the
> model
> in the general case. For general purpose TLDs, or
generally speaking for
> TLDs that do not have a market niche but are in
competition among
> themselves
> (I am talking about cases like .COM, .ORG, .NET, .INFO,
etc.) it would be
> extremely dangerous, IMHO, to have some of them bound
by current contracts
> to the use of registrars, while others would have free
hand.
>
> Again, I am eager to listen, mine is not a position
carved in stone, just
> food for thought.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
|
