Re: [DNS] Rationale of .au high price was: [DNS] Cat got your tongue Chris?

Re: [DNS] Rationale of .au high price was: [DNS] Cat got your tongue Chris?

From: Kim Davies <kim§>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:04:43 +0800
Quoting Jason Pay on Tuesday May 18, 2004:
| Why didnt you address any of my other points?

Because I found the one I replied to most remarkable, but if you really
want me to:

| There is no justification for the high prices of .au names,

The prices in .au are not exorbitant, I would not even say they are
high. They are not the lowest in the world, but there are a whole range
of factors that point to why. Do I think they can be lower? Yes. Do I
think auDA chose the right bidder? I don't know what the other bids were
so how could I know?

| AusRegistry and auDA are ripping off .au domain name customers!

I don't agree. AusRegistry is making a profit, and as a company, they
tried to offer the best service, won a bid, and have done well with it.
I can't fault them for that. 

As I said earlier, I would prefer a not-for-profit entity running the
registry at cost. In theory, if such a proposal was put forward in the
tender - again, everything else being equal - then it would have won if
it undercut AusRegistry.

| The costs of entry into the market for AusRegistry should not be passed
| onto the customer. this being the case, then AuDA failed the internet
| community in not ensuring that they got the best deal. If the tendering
| process did not get the best result, then other options should have been
| explored.

I answered this in another mail, I can't understand what you are talking

| auDA are not passing cost savings onto the customer quickly enough.

The tender rebid happens every 4 years. Why? Because it was considered
a fair balance between a variety of factors. The tender could be rebid
every 3 months, but the costs of administering it, changing registries,
educating registrars etc.etc. would be huge and any potential cost
benefits I think would be quickly lost.

In contrast, the rebid could be every 20 years. This would give the
opportunity for the bidder to spread costs over a longer period, factor
in improved technology efficiencies over those years, and have a lower
price. But then you are locked into the one provider for a longer
period. Who knows how the industry will change in that time?

4 years is just 2 renewal cycles and I think is a fair balance between
other options.

As for the auDA component, it is reviewed annually in line with auDA's

| How much money does auDA have to have in the bank before they say they
| have enough in reserves? When can they start passing on their savings to
| the customers. Are there people queueing up to sue auDA?, Why do they
| need so much money in the bank?

auDA by design has to pass back its money to consumers. Its a point of
personal opinion how much reserves it must have. Some would argue I
suspect auDA should be far more agressive and spend more money on legal
matters such as the recent stuff. I would guess every different
accountant or lawyer would have a different opinion on what reserves
would be desirable.

| We should all expect that shortly after the next tender that prices
| should dramatically drop as we will not have to pay for some businesses 
| cost of entry into the market which AusRegistry is now reaping.

Do you really think the setup cost of a registry is that big? I don't. I
would consider it a fraction of the running cost.

I would expect lower bids because the startup costs to the INDUSTRY will
be lower. AusRegistry, auDA and the registrars had to do all sorts of one
off expenses moving to the new EPP-based registry environment, coupled
with a new policy model and other factors. This has nothing to do with
AusRegistry winning the bid, it would have applied no matter who won
it - even an entity that already ran registries and only had to tailor
existing platforms for the .au market. Whoever operates the registry for
the next 4 years will not have these problems, and it has nothing to do
with start-up costs in creating a registry.

I would also expect lower bids because the foundation of the registry,
EPP, has matured. Australia was one of the first movers on EPP and
actually ran with an early draft. (It was so draft that originally auDA
was going to use a proprietary alternative. This would have meant a
transition to EPP would likely have happened in 2006 instead, meaning
registrars would all have to rewrite their software then.)

In the intervening years, the protocol has finalised, many registries
around the world use it, there is an experience base, and there is alot
more software that supports it. (There was none in 2002.)

Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC