[ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG

[Dave Crocker]

At 10:02 AM 12/27/2001 -0500, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>Dave, but future .ORG charter not necesarily has to be retroactive.

.org has existed for more than 10 years.  although there is a general view 
that it is for non-commercial organizations, there has been no policy to 
enforce that limitation.  it is simply not practical to try to change a 10 
year history now.  if there were a serious problem that needed to be 
solved, it might be worth considering having restrictions.  however there 
is no problem.



At 11:57 PM 12/26/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 10:31:08PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > At 10:17 PM 12/26/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > commercial sector generally gets into more complex trade-offs than just 
> the
> > benefit of low-cost.  ...
> > In fact, there is the potential for a NEGATIVE commercial effect if the
>
>Both of these points affect non-commercial entities as well -- the Red
>Cross probably would rather not be in a registry with a reputation for
>being cut-rate.

Although it renders my point of view a tautology, I could nonetheless argue 
that a non-commercial that is so interested in its image is really acting 
like a commercial entity.  (Not a for-profit, but an entity with a focus on 
commerce.)


>A non-profit registry that made low prices a primary goal could probably
>get the wholesale cost of registration down to around $1/year, and
>retail at perhaps $2/year, perfect for highly automated registration
>processes.

Any serious marketing effort will increase the base cost.  Further, any 
effort at enforcement of a particular registration rule -- especially one 
as fuzzy as would be necessary for .org -- invites legal challenge.  That, 
too, increases cost.

Marketing is for the purpose of increasing sales.  The instant an 
organization starts down the path of aggressive sales, we need to project 
its expenses according to a typical commercial business model.  In such 
businesses, the core budget for producing a product is roughly 10-25% (or 
less.)  Hence the sales price would be more like US$4-$10.


>.org domains could become promotional
>giveaways.  To me that is essentially letting .org turn into the
>dungheap TLD, and personally, I would really rather not see that happen.

Color me confused.  You want to keep the price higher, so that .org will 
have a better image?

That's the danger of serious marketing.  It necessarily dominates business 
thinking.  For an organization needing to maximize revenues, such a focus 
is essential.  For one trying to keep costs down, it distorts expenses.

The NCDNHC has predominantly worried about civil society issues.  Such 
things as openness and low cost dominate the practical aspects of such a 
focus.  Anything that requires marketing or enforcement move the focus away 
from basic civil society concerns into marketing.


>In fact, as I think about it now, I don't see how .org can maintain
>anything like its current character without restrictions of some kind.

That means either that you think .org has an existing problem or are 
certain that a problem will emerge.  If there is an existing problem, it 
has not been described or substantiated.

As to future problems, fantasizing about the future is tricky business and 
needs very careful substantiation indeed.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464