Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP

[Eric Dierker <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Just call me a devils advocate;
Isn't it business that will create stability.
Certanly we have seen that governance cannot do it.
e

> 
> Were you surprised that the registries as a group oppose this?  It
> makes  it very clear that these matters are being voted upon based on
> business  concerns, with the technical stability of the internet being
> of absolutely  no concern whatsoever.
> 
> Here's something I sent last week:
> 
> ....
> 
> ... I find the term "registry service" to be an oxymoron.
> 
> A registry should do one job and it should do it right.
> 
> A registry, like a dentist who is drilling into your teeth, should not
> be distracted from the task at hand.
> 
> Because TLD registries are a highly privileged group and allowed entre
> into a very small club of providers of what has become an essential
> internet utility service, those registries ought to be considered as
> having shed their right to offer distracting "services" as the price of
> admission to the club.
> 
> If the doors to that club are ever opened wider then that condition
> could be, and perhaps ought to be, relaxed.  But as you properly
> indicate, the door to new TLD registries is presently locked shut by
> ICANN's immobility.
> 
> But even if there were a wide open door to new TLDs (and thus to new
> registries), because customers build their brands and their network
> identities, on their chosen TLD, those customers need protection
> against so-called "services" that detract from the core job that those
> customers (and users) want (and have paid for) - a reliable name
> resolution service.
> 
> So, as long as the drought of new TLDs continues - and the addition of
> merely tens of new TLDs is grossly insufficient to end that drought - I
> find the concept of registry "services" to be something that ought to
> be rejected in totality.
> 
> I have heard no suggested "service" that is so tightly tied to
> "registry"  function that it can not be done by registrars or by a
> third party, and  this even includes things like WLS.
> 
> So the bottom line for me is this:
> 
> If registries want to offer "services" they had better ensure that we
> get a whole lot more registries (via new TLD's) first.  And in
> addition, those registries, new and old, had better be willing to make
> firm guarantees - guarantees that are backed by something quite
> tangible and guarantees that are readily enforced by those affected,
> both customers and users - that the nature and quality of the core
> offering is neither reduced, diluted, nor subject to ill reputation by
> virtue of such "services".
> 
> Registries need not be fearful of this - In your book on the
> development of telephone networks in the US you point out how AT&T
> adopted the mantle of a regulated entity as a means to dominate its
> rivals.  And for the greater part of the 20th century that approach
> yielded a stupendous market share and revenue stream and yielded a
> telephone system that had many qualities that were the envy of the rest
> of the world.
> 
> 		--karl--