Re: Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
At 07:32 PM 1/21/1999 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
But Internic isn't very forthcoming in how they manage their systems. Even so, I think I could run an automated database service for very little cost per transaction. On the order of hundreths of a cent per transaction.
You and half a million other people claim to be able to do this. Running code please?
Running code on any of the dozens of discount brokerages. Actually, their code is much, much more complex than a domain registry. And much less automated. So charging 14.95 (E-Trade's fee) is probably too much, even with some "free" speculation. Stock brokerages are probably a bad example, because they are not completely analogous. They are way more complex, and much less automated, and probably less automatable. But it is significant that brokerages are LESS automated, MORE complex, and still charge LESS than Internic. [just want to insert some random upper case letters ;-)] Therefore, while its not such a good example, it still shows that Internic is getting a windfall by comparison. And it provides a real life example that one can run an automated database service for close to what I (and half a million others) claim to be able to do it for.
You also assume that domain speculators are the only ones who register more domains than they pay for. They aren't.
Yes, they are.
?? You contradict this in your next sentence.
I'll bet many here have registered domains that they later didn't want and didn't pay for.
So? That doesn't prove that non-speculators do this more often than speculators. Why don't you check with NSI on this?
I didn't say they do it more often. NSI wouldn't be able to answer this either. All they know is the total number of domains registered which aren't paid for. They may have identified a few speculators, such as the "on-hold" people.
Further, speculators ultimately pay for the domains they sell.
No, the purchaser pays for the domains they sell. The speculator often does not.
This doesn't make sense. Its like saying the customer of a hardware store pays for hardware, and hardware store does not. While I suppose it could be literally true, it isn't evidence that the hardware store "didn't pay". Likewise, Internic got paid for the domain, because the speculator got someone to pay for it.
It stand up quite well. Having worked for a registrar that employed both models (post-pay and pre-pay) I can state unequivocally that our empirical data showed that because of speculation a post-pay model was undesireable as the speculators on the system at the time were not paying for the vast majority of domains they registered.
But they generate a net profit for the registry. Why? They cause more domains to be paid for than would otherwise be paid for. The revenue they create for the registry is greater than the infinitesimal cost of the domains which are never registered.
Demostratively false, that is why we are having this discussion. The problems at NSI weren't caused from normal load that they expect. If you want to argue that they have a shoddy, underpowered infrastructure, I would tend to agree with you.
Demonstration please? *CLAIMS* that they cause internic problems are why we have this discussion. However, those claims are false. Internic problems are due to poor management, and as you say "shoddy, underpowered infrastructure", not speculators.
I think Internic can afford to scale with the volume regardless of speculation. Internic is a nearly fully automated process which charges
Speculators that actively try to sell their domains quite likely cause more domains to be registered, and so they increase the Internic sales revenue. I haven't seen any evidence that the costs of their non-completed transactions are more than cost of their completed transactions.
Think about what you are saying. The cost of a completed transaction is absored by the fees paid for that transaction. The cost of a non-completed transaction is paid for by the fees *everyone else* pays for *their* transactions.
This isn't a sensible argument when you look closely. The total cost is subtracted from the total revenue. But if you are going to split up the costs, you must do it fairly. Speculator revenue less Speculator costs -------------------------------------------- = Net profit Normal revenue less normal costs. -------------------------------------------- = Net Profit Since the speculators are generating positive cash flow (the revenue they generate is greater than the costs they incur), "Normal" users aren't subsidizing speculators. What you are doing is this: Normal revenue less normal costs less speculator costs. --------------------------------------------- = Normal users subsidy You leave out speculator revenue, and draw an incorrect conclusion.
The only speculators that might be able to register thousands of domains with little effort are the ones who register on-hold domains. But they are doing a favor for Internic, because they are collecting fees.
Where do you get this wild idea? The only way this occurs is if the domain is sold which occurs in the minority of cases, and then it is usually the end purchaser, not the speculator that is paying for the domain. The speculator serves no useful purpose in the transaction chain for anyone involved save themselves.
Speaking of wild ideas. I suppose that you think the marketing/sales department serves no useful purpose either. After all, it is the customer (end purchaser) who buys services, not the sales person. You are being most naive. The speculator is generating business that wouldn't otherwise be generated. Even the ones who register 'on-hold' domains. The reason speculators can be targeted is because Internic needs a scapegoat on which to blame their "shoddy, underpowered infrastructure", and the internic can easily survive without speculators. But lets not fall for this again. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dean Anderson wrote:
At 07:32 PM 1/21/1999 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
But Internic isn't very forthcoming in how they manage their systems. Even so, I think I could run an automated database service for very little cost per transaction. On the order of hundreths of a cent per transaction.
You and half a million other people claim to be able to do this. Running code please?
Running code on any of the dozens of discount brokerages.
We aren't talking about running a discount brokerage, we are talking about running a registry.
Actually, their code is much, much more complex than a domain registry. And much less automated. So charging 14.95 (E-Trade's fee) is probably too much, even with some "free" speculation.
None of which is suitable for running a registry.
Stock brokerages are probably a bad example, because they are not completely analogous.
I am glad we can agree on something. :-)
They are way more complex, and much less automated, and probably less automatable. But it is significant that brokerages are LESS automated, MORE complex, and still charge LESS than Internic. [just want to insert some random upper case letters ;-)]
Agreed. NSI is making a killing because there is no effective competition.
You also assume that domain speculators are the only ones who register more domains than they pay for. They aren't.
Yes, they are.
?? You contradict this in your next sentence.
Apologies, didn't read closely...
Further, speculators ultimately pay for the domains they sell.
No, the purchaser pays for the domains they sell. The speculator often does not.
This doesn't make sense. Its like saying the customer of a hardware store pays for hardware, and hardware store does not. While I suppose it could be literally true, it isn't evidence that the hardware store "didn't pay".
It makes a lot of sense. Currently a speculator can tie up a domain name indefinitely without paying a cent for that domain. All they have to do is submit a registration, for which they will receive free use of the domain for a few months, then the domain goes on hold, and then when it is deleted, they simply reregister the domain again, and the cycle continues. Cost to the speculator for the domain: $0.00.
Likewise, Internic got paid for the domain, because the speculator got someone to pay for it.
It stand up quite well. Having worked for a registrar that employed both models (post-pay and pre-pay) I can state unequivocally that our empirical data showed that because of speculation a post-pay model was undesireable as the speculators on the system at the time were not paying for the vast majority of domains they registered.
But they generate a net profit for the registry.
They don't do anything for the registry.
Why? They cause more domains to be paid for than would otherwise be paid for. The revenue they create for the registry is greater than the infinitesimal cost of the domains which are never registered.
But the domains *are* registered, yet never paid for. This does not help the registry in the slightest, and it does not increase the net profit of the registry.
Demostratively false, that is why we are having this discussion. The problems at NSI weren't caused from normal load that they expect. If you want to argue that they have a shoddy, underpowered infrastructure, I would tend to agree with you.
Demonstration please? *CLAIMS* that they cause internic problems are why we have this discussion.
Again I would point to empirical data, and NSI's own admission that they are having problems.
However, those claims are false. Internic problems are due to poor management, and as you say "shoddy, underpowered infrastructure", not speculators.
Well, a question for you then: What peaks of volume should a registry be able to weather? If you are happily doing 1X volume and tomorrow someone slams you with 10X or 100X is it your belief that any competent company should be able to handle the volume? Map this example to ISP bandwidth for the sake of argument. Does the argument still hold? Do most ISP's maintain a reserve of 10X or 100X worth of "normal" bandwidth for peaks? Now I have no idea what volume of requests that NSI received, it could have been 1,000 extra or 100,000 or some other number. However I think that it is reasonable to expect things to break at a certain volume. What's that magic number?
Speculators that actively try to sell their domains quite likely cause more domains to be registered, and so they increase the Internic sales revenue. I haven't seen any evidence that the costs of their non-completed transactions are more than cost of their completed transactions.
Think about what you are saying. The cost of a completed transaction is absored by the fees paid for that transaction. The cost of a non-completed transaction is paid for by the fees *everyone else* pays for *their* transactions.
This isn't a sensible argument when you look closely.
Sure it is. :-)
The total cost is subtracted from the total revenue. But if you are going to split up the costs, you must do it fairly.
Speculator revenue less Speculator costs -------------------------------------------- = Net profit
Normal revenue less normal costs. -------------------------------------------- = Net Profit
Since the speculators are generating positive cash flow (the revenue they generate is greater than the costs they incur), "Normal" users aren't subsidizing speculators.
What you are doing is this:
Normal revenue less normal costs less speculator costs. --------------------------------------------- = Normal users subsidy
You leave out speculator revenue, and draw an incorrect conclusion.
You proceed on a false premise which is why your model does not hold. Speculators by and large do not generate *dime one* for the registry. They go register 100's or 1000's of domains with no intention of paying for any of them. When they are sold it is the *buyer* not the speculator that is paying for the domain. Again, the speculator adds no value to the transaction. The domains would have been sold anyways.
The only speculators that might be able to register thousands of domains with little effort are the ones who register on-hold domains. But they are doing a favor for Internic, because they are collecting fees.
Where do you get this wild idea? The only way this occurs is if the domain is sold which occurs in the minority of cases, and then it is usually the end purchaser, not the speculator that is paying for the domain. The speculator serves no useful purpose in the transaction chain for anyone involved save themselves.
Speaking of wild ideas. I suppose that you think the marketing/sales department serves no useful purpose either. After all, it is the customer (end purchaser) who buys services, not the sales person. You are being most naive.
The domains would sell quite well without the speculator. The only reasons we have the speculators is *because* domains are selling so well. If they weren't there would be no motivation for the speculators to engage in this activity. I /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com (tinc) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
participants (2)
-
Dean Anderson -
Patrick Greenwell