Hacker News Reader

Comment by aragonite | Hacker News Reader

One thing I've sometimes wondered is why we need the two-tier system of registries and registrars. Economically speaking, what essential functions do registrars perform (specifically in their capacity as registrars [1]) that justify their existence? Why can't people register say a .org domain name directly with the Public Interest Registry? Why is an intermediary like GoDaddy required?

There's even a ICANN rule I think that says a registrar and a registry can't be the same legal entity, which is why Google had to create a separate company called Charleston Road Registry for .dev, .app, .google etc (likewise Donuts created Dog Beach LLC and so on).

[1] I know most registrars offer additional services like hosting which smaller (and often non-profit) registries may not be equipped to provide. But that doesn't really answer the question. Why can't registries handle basic domain registration themselves & leave hosting to specialized providers?

View on HN

Because people were tired of dealing with NetworkSolutions customer support, even if the registry service was good. Verisign bought the registry business, and spun out NetworkSolutions, the registrar.

This is a benefit, because running a registry is a technical business, and running a registrar is a customer service business. In the old days, if you didn't like the service, you needed to find another TLD; post 1999, you can keep your domain and change your registrar when you want. The TLD can redelegate the registry business too, but it doesn't affect the end customers very much.

There's only 2800 registrars, and popular registries likely deal with each of them, but that's not a large number. When registries need to contact registrars, it's manageable.

But not all TLDs operate this way. ccTLDs can operate however they like: some have evolved to a registry/registrar operation, some offer direct registration only, some offer direct registration and through intermediaries.

> This is a benefit, because running a registry is a technical business, and running a registrar is a customer service business.

I’ve registered and managed domains for my businesses for 20+ years now and I have never once been in contact with a registrar’s customer service. I want a registrar that runs like a technical business. My main problem with them is that they all turn into leaches when they are successful – charging more and more for renewals, filling their websites with more and more spammy “products”.

I've had the best luck with providers that run a domain reselling on the side. When I was a Sonic.net customer, I used their domain services, cause it provided just enough for what I need. I currently use nearlyfreespeech.net for most of my domains; it's barebones and I have to pay a service fee to update my DNS server IP, but it's better than dealing with something else; although I have two domains they don't support.

I setup OpenSRS reseller accounts for two internet businesses I worked for in 2000, and I might do it again for a low effort side business, but I haven't convinced myself the paperwork burden is worth it to operate a business.

> I've had the best luck with providers that run a domain reselling on the side.

Yep. This is why I don't mind paying a slight premium to register everything through AWS's Route53.

AWS is making $90b/yr in revenue. Stuff's got to go pretty far off the rails for somebody there to sign off on "Yeah, you know what, I think we really need to start doing upsells and dark patterns in Route53 registrations!"

And if I need to contact support... their support department isn't budgeted based on running a domain registrar. It's budgeted based on supporting their cloud business. Every time I've contacted them about everything they've been quick, efficient, and competent.

So I pay them $14/yr instead of paying Spaceship or Porkbun $10/yr or Internet.bs $13/yr or... If I'm ever at the point where the $1-4/yr matters, I should probably just revisit all these domains I keep renewing.

> I’ve registered and managed domains for my businesses for 20+ years now and I have never once been in contact with a registrar’s customer service.

Interacting with a registrar's domain management web interface is being in contact with the registrar's customer service - it's just automated, rather than manual, customer service.

That’s like saying a gas pump is customer service. That completely dilutes the meaning out to “the customer uses the product”, which is not what people mean when they say “customer service”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_service

Thinking lowly of a company's customer service based on how few person-to-person interactions one has had with them is just about the dumbest stance a person could take on the matter. It's on par with the attitude where workers are elevated for creating fires and then putting them out while those who make sure not to create them in the first place are overlooked (or worse).

It’s what the term means. You’re getting mad because you thought it meant “user experience”

> You’re getting mad because

Anyone who uses this "trick" automatically loses whether they know it or not.

You said “the dumbest stance anyone can take on the planet” in reaction to the literal definition. It’s clearly an emotional reaction that doesn’t have any substance to engage with.

> You said “the dumbest stance anyone can take on the planet”

Wrong. Again.

> leaches when they are successful

I am with internet.bs and a happy customer since 10y

For European TLD I would use inwx.com

I buy email external for 18 Euros a year at infomaniak.com

> My main problem with them is that they all turn into leaches when they are successful

And now imagine how bad that problem would be if they knew that the only way you could walk away would be by giving up your TLD, to which very likely at least some marketing materials - potentially the whole identity of your company - is tied.

> There's only 2800 registrars

In practical terms there's a lot fewer. Look through the list of registrars [1], ideally sorted by the contact email, and you'll find that many of them are "sock puppets" of a larger operation:

* 1,251 registrars are operated by NameBright, including "DropCatch.com 345 LLC" through "DropCatch.com 1545 LLC" (numbered sequentially).

* 479 are operated by Network Solutions under many different names.

* 300 are operated by Gname and are named, rather uncreatively, "Gname 001 Inc" through "Gname 300 Inc".

There are a lot of other small-scale duplicates, like about fifty run by LogicBoxes or twenty by DotMedia, but the three mentioned above make up nearly three quarters of the total alone. I'd be surprised if there were much more than two or three hundred distinct companies involved in the domain registration industry.

[1]: https://www.icann.org/en/accredited-registrars

Yes, I believe the 'duplication' of registrar accounts is so that they can increase their rate limits on drop catching expired domains, presumably to avoid the registrar getting a thundering herd problem from determined registrars. A rate limit solves that at least.

Last I looked they have to pay about £3K for every account annually, so clearly it's still a lucrative niche.

> 1,251 registrars are operated by NameBright

Meanwhile, NameBright doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.

(Readers are encouraged to try the same experiment with the trusted set of CAs with root certificates that ship with their Web browsers.)

As someone in the industry, or used to be...'for fairness'. So the registry is a neutral entity, and the registrar doesn't have to be.

The probable real reason? Because ICANN is a money grab full of completely incompetent people from yesteryear who've been coasting for decades. And without registrars, registries may just realize they don't need ICANN at all. Seriously, look at their DNSSec offerings and especially look at the ingenious 'Digital Archery.'

See [1] for ICANN’s historical and recent thoughts on cross-ownership of registrars and registries. They have already allowed cross-ownership for new gTLDs for a while (or am I mistaken?).

IMO one important function of registrars is handling international payment systems. If it were completely up to PIR, I wouldn’t be surprised if they only accepted Visa and Mastercard like so many American businesses selling digital products with no regional restrictions otherwise.[2] That largely wouldn’t be a problem for Americans and Western Europeans but would be terrible for most of the world’s population. This is not an argument against registries offering optional direct-to-registrant services, though.

[1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/rationale-cross-own...

[2] Maybe PayPal as well, maybe even wire transfer. Anyway, the point is only US-centric or first world-centric payment would likely be supported.

Registries, like most wholesalers, don’t want to deal with the problems of the general public.

Nor can a global registry ever be adequately qualified to function in local languages or follow regional policy and law.

So they need a channel.

What’s more, it’s not like this hasn’t been tried. Network Solutions tried to be all things to all people and were godawful at it.

So there’s a strong case for commercial separation of tiers by responsibility, and by Conway’s law the separation of technical layers follows naturally.

The allegation of ICANN being a gang of corrupt, protectionist, has-been cronies, is a separate matter

The registrars play an important role in terms of services and support. As soon as you register a domain, the registry for the TLD gains monopoly power over you. That doesn’t create any incentive to provide good services or support.

Registrars have to compete in those areas and that benefits registrants. Instead of eliminating registrars I think they need to be empowered a bit at the expense of the registries. The registries don’t seem to understand the product they’re selling and only seem to care about price discovery and discrimination.

There are a few reasons for the split. Most importantly a registry is tied to a TLD. A TLD can only have one registry for it. A registrar can work with multiple TLDs and multiple registrants.

Imagine them as filters.

A registry maps one TLD to multiple registrars.

A registrar maps multiple registries to multiple registrants.

Companies come with jurisdictions. A given company will operate, or be exposed to, one or more jurisdictions. In the modern Internet era this is even more important, but even before privacy became paramount you could never expect every registry to deal with customers around the world. There are different laws in different countries. So you need some local entity to act as a kind of middleman, if only to accept local currency and payment options.

This conversation has gotten more important recently because legal requirements around registrant data differ by jurisdiction. However, IMO this is simply a logical extension of the requirement for locality.

People around the world do business differently. Also, a registrant may wish to control domains under different TLDs with one account. That requires a registrar that can interface with multiple registries.

I personally wonder why we need a central registry system at all. Couldn't we just use a DHT or similar? I understand why it was created this way to a good degree, but why we continue to use this I don't get at all, there have been wonderful practical advances in networking and distributed computing since this was all set up and I can't think of one good reason not to use those advances to make the internet better.

I think in some rarer cases there are TLDs where the registry and registrar are the same, though they may be going away. The Pitcairn domain registry did not used to have a registry-registrar split even relatively recently, for example; it might now, but I'm not sure how to check. This may only be a legacy thing, or perhaps ccTLD-specific. Not really sure.

At the time ICANN started, it seemed like a cabal of business people got together, and agreed to take a public stewardship duty, and turn it into a "market" where many could profit.

You'll hear claims of how privatizing this public good simple administrative function "optimizes customer service", but I think that's either been shown to be some Ayn Rand Libertarian fantasy, or was intentional corporate BS messaging from the start.

We might speculate it's the same reason that AWS doesn't offer software development services or Facebook doesn't produce content. They create the platform for others to build on top of it.

AWS does offer software development services.

They might to sone extent yet it's definitely not their focus.

Whoever downvoted, could you at least elaborate why?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com