[Comment-Dnso] Re: Pre-payment for registration [dnso.discuss] Re: [discuss] RE: [IFWP] Re: Register.com

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Steinar and all,

sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:

> > >The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs.  "prepayment no",
> > >but "prepayment yes for some and no for others".
> > >It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is
> > >not a level field for competition.
> >
> > More like this should not be an issue imposed by the registry or
> > ICANN, but a decision each registrar should make.  The registry should
> > not penalize or charge registrars for cancellations provided they do
> > not excessively exceed the normal averages for non-pay cancellations.
> >
> > Lets face it, the registry has EXTREMELY little cost involved for
> > inserting and then removing that entry (I'd venture to say none at
> > all).
>
> The cost may be small, but it is not zero. I find it perfectly reasonable
> that a registry should charge *some* fee for a domain registration, even
> if that registration is later cancelled. Having zero cost encourages
> rampant domain name speculation.

Having pre-payment or non-prepayment for the registration does not
in any way imply not cost.  Therefore pre-payment does little if anything
to curtail name speculation or "cybersquating".

> Having a small fee (not the cost of a
> full registration) will make speculation possible, but it won't be free.
> Compare with the stock markets - speculation in the stock markets is not
> free.

  I speculate on the stock market almost every week and I do it with my
brokers money much of the time, not my own.  They get paid an additional
fee for me to do this.  It is commonly called, margin.  Or in other parlance's
"Buying stock on the lay away plan".

>
>
> > Let the registrars decide what is the best model for them and
> > their target markets.  The registrar that sets up a no prepay secure
> > email interface for ISPs to funnel new registrations through will see
> > an influx of millions of dollars of registrations from the ISPs that
> > are tired of dealing with NSI, and are awaiting a registrar that will
> > meet their needs.
>
> If we're talking about TLDs other than just COM this may also depend on
> the policy of the TLD in question. A TLD may have a policy which says
> for instance that a domain name cannot be *reserved* - that domains are
> only for those who pay for the domains and have real name servers.

What of those that purchase a domain that has some other organization host
that domain?  Are they than not allowed to purchase a domain name under
your suggestion?

>
>
> A domain name registration and a later cancellation of the same is for
> all practical purposes equivalent to a temporary reservation of the
> domain name - it will block others from registering the same domain.

  This is nonsense.  First come first serve should be the rule, as it has
been.  It would be a prudent idea to limit the total number of domains
to a set low single digit, like 5, for instance.  For the ICANN Interim Board
to impose their "Accreditation Agreement" on potential registrars is in
and of itself imposing a business model of sorts on those Registrars.
THAT is not free and unfettered competition by definition...

>
> -snip-
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
>
> ---
> You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to:
> http://lists.association.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=dnso.discuss
> This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/).

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208