The analogy is interesting.
The "real estate" is created by the registry. It represents a reserved and
exclusive "space" on their server. One is tempted therefore to say that the
registry "owns" the name space (under their TLD) and that domain name
registrants simply lease it.
The obvious problem with that is that two other parties contribute to the value
of the registration:
1) the authoritative root server, which creates global visibility for
registrations under the TLD; and
2) The domain name registrant, who creates equity in the name by investments in
content and marketing. These appear to be sunk costs -- superficially, it seems
that the value of the name cannot be carried away if the name registration is
lost.
However, the more I think about the fundamental issues of ownership and property
rights, the more sympathetic I become to the idea of proprietary registries, or
at least some model that allows shared and proprietary registries to co-exist.
The key is to understand how contracting among the parties can overcome problems
of who gets to capture the value of a co-owned resource.
Many problems associated with the "lock-in" and the domain name registrant's
equity could be overcome by various competitive and contractual mechanisms. IF
there is an open market for registries, there would be competition over the
terms and conditions of the registry-registrant contract. It is not difficult to
imagine contractual arrangements that would offer domain name registrants
various degrees of protection. Such contracts would create a competitive
advantage for certain types of registrants. For example, there could be
agreements that if the registrant moved to a different registry, losing the
name, that the abandoned name would not be utilized by the registry for a year,
and do nothing but automatically forward hits to the new name. This would
dramatically reduce switching costs. It is also possible to imagine consortia of
registries that enter into cooperative agreements to permit shared registration
among themselves.
While a proprietary model offers a great deal of flexibility and room for
innovation, a forcible and uniformly shared model do not. That is, via contract
and competition, a proprietary model can encompass most of the benefits of a
shared model. But the reverse is not true. A shared model eliminates variety and
competition on the dimension of the registry-registrant contract.
This is already turning into a dissertation and I haven't dealt with the
authoritative root server and its relationship to the ownership issue. My
feeling is that it is the root, not the registry, that should be treated as the
"essential facility" and handled as a public trust.
--MM
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Trying an anaolgy:
>
> The character string is land; the name is akin to real estate improvements.
> You should be able to own the improvements to the land you have made - the
> value you have created - but what about the underlying land? How do
> you/Should you - keep them separate? Is there a public right of way?
>
> Where does the metaphor break down? How does it work? (And note that there
> are lots of arguments about land, too!)
>
> Esther
>
