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