Subject: Re: Tired of Waiting

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:29:06 -0700

>The issue is not only one of price. If Chris turns into a flake, his
>customers have no way to switch to another provider. Furthermore, we
>would expect that with time, prices should drop, not remain stable.

If CORE turns into a flake, the .firm names that they wanted to sell
are just as locked-in. You will, no doubt, claim that the POC's
oversight prohibits this, but you can't know that. POC could turn into
a flake, as you say. Control is control.

But your second point is very valid. Recall, that multi-year contracts
aren't necessary when the contract says that prices shall not
increase more than a fixed percentage. If you are right, and I suspect
you are, then they will NEVER go up. Place a cap on the upscale, 
and let the downscale do what it will.

>> On the other hand, the CORE registrars that would *like* to sell
>> IAHC's version of .web charge, on average $75 to $100/yr as
>> middlemen.
>
>I have no evidence that supports your claim. I also suspect that
>competition in the area would drive prices down to a small rate of
>return over cost.

Quite probably. Look at the web sites for CORE registrars. They're
not only still taking money for names that may not even occur, but
they are charging fees often higher than $100 per name! I've seen
one site that charges $500 for a name such that they'll put it in the
front of their queue. Even with a non-profit back-end, the front end
is getting what they can.

And you said it again - prices will be driven down. So where's the
risk, if the upside is limited?

Sigh.

--
Christopher Ambler, Personal Opinion Only
--
NOTICE: The user of this email address is a resident of the State of 
Washington. Washington law provides for up to $500 per incident in
the case of Unsolicited Commercial Email (also known as spam).
This individual WILL file a complaint.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:23:50 +0800

>If CORE turns into a flake, the .firm names that they wanted to sell

Chris, there is a fundamental difference between a private, for-profit
entity going flakey, versus having that happen with a public,
not-for-profit, with independent public oversight.  

The incentives and, more importantly, the controls are completely
different.  They don't exist for the former, whereas they are extensive for
the latter.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                         USA:                 +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                                   675 Spruce Drive
                                                  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
fax: +1 408 273 6464                 Malaysia:            +60 19 329 9445
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                     Post Office Box 296, UPM
<mailto:[email-masked]>              Serdang, Selangor 43400 MY

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:41:11 -0400

> a flake, as you say. Control is control.

POC is a public organization with a wide number of members from a wide 
number of organizations. It would be possible to recall and replace
the members of the committee if they flaked out. I cannot replace the
owners of a private corporation.

Perry

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 03:24:02 +0100

Chris and all,

> a flake, as you say. Control is control.

  This scenario is of course true.  But this scenario need not exist and should
not.
But it would require a fundamental change in which POC would allow membership,
just as it would under the recently proposed "Names Council" which was
determined
or recommended in Reston.  That "Names Council" we presume would be responsible
for determining the vehicles of operation of registries and registrars as part
of
their charter.

  As for how an what policies should be given consideration, the "Names
Council",
would need to consider several competitive models so as to severely eliminate DN

or TLD "Lock-IN".  As many of you can likely imagine, there are many
models that could fit into a Market Driven global economic system.  The key
we think would be that what ever model is determined should be conducive
to creating competition and keep startup cost as low as possible at the same
time
along with maintaining the highest level of stability within the DNS system as
technically possible given the advances and the pace of those advances.

> and let the downscale do what it will.

  Sorry to say that price fixing will not work.  This is a two sided coin.  You
cant
arbitrarily do so on the up-side nor on the downside.  But you can encourage
healthy competition which should limit up-side prices.  Under the Nixon
administration,
price controls were imposed, and consequently failed.  Lets try not to forget
the consequences.

> is getting what they can.

  Yes, pre-registration practices should be avoided.

> risk, if the upside is limited?

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]