[registrars] Drop in service as number of registrars increases - time to change the regulatory model

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,


> 3) On July 27th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections from 
> 30 to 20 per Registrar.
> 
> 4) On August 20th, VeriSign cut the batch pool connections 
> from 20 to 10 per Registrar.
> 

There is clearly something wrong with the current regulatory model,
where as new industry participants are added, the wholesale supplier
reduces service to the existing industry participants that have built
substantial businesses over a period of time.

What would happen, if as new internet service providers (ISPs) were
added, the major telcos reduced the bandwidth available for the existing
well established ISPs?    Or every time a new airline wanted to access
an airport, it was given the same number of landing slots and airline
gates as the other established airlines (with a drop in service for each
existing airline)?

There are two quite separate problems here that are being lumped
together.

(1) a method to resolve contention when many registrars want to get the
same name at the same time   (subject of a separate email)

(2) a regulatory model that provides all registrars with an equal amount
of bandwidth at the same price, regardless of the size of their
operations

The regulatory model should allow equitable access of resources to
registrars, so that all registrars can offer an equivalent level of
service to their customers.  Right now a new entrant with a few
customers, can provide a much higher level of service, than an
established industry player with many customers.  In regulated
telecommunications industries, generally a maximum price is set to allow
new entrants to purchase bandwidth equitably (although large customers
can get bulk discounts), and different industry participants get enough
upstream capacity to meet the needs of their customers.

The original regulatory model was appropriate at a time of less than 50
registrars, and when there was one registrar with substantial market
dominance.  The market is now much different.  There is no single
dominant registrar (although the top 10 account for around two thirds of
the market), and there are over 300 registrars.   This would mean that
most of these 300 registrars would account for less than 0.1% of the
market.   Thus the regulatory model needs to mature to scale for a
market with potentially thousands of small registrars, and a small
number of larger providers.  This is not dissimilar to the ISP market in
most countries.

Given that ICANN is considering new tlds, and re-considering the
registry agreements that will govern these TLDs - now is the time to
decide strategically where we are headed.  Right now I think some parts
of a registry's operations are over-regulated, and other parts are
under-regulated. 

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin