Harold Feld wrote:
> >The solution Commerce
> >has inmplemented is based on the "unbundling" approach
> >utilized by the Telecom Act of 1996. NSI is being forced to
> >unbundle its registration services in the same way the RBOCs
> >are theoretically being forced to unbundle their network
> >elements. This approach also worked well in the natural
> >gas market and the electric market.
The word "also" is a bit troubling in there. I would contend that this
approach has NOT worked well in telecommunications and that by pre-empting
"real" competition (i.e, competition from new gTLDs) turning ".com" into a
regulated public utility is a less than optimal solution. What it will
lead to is long debates and arguments over what NSI's "costs" are and the
terms and conditions of interoperation with it, just as the 96 TA has led
to interminable legal and regulatory debates over interconnection.
> >Whether you think it is the correct approach is a point
> >that can be argued, but it overstates the case to the point
> >of absurdity to say that USG has not, and therefore cannot, taken
> >steps to terminate the existing NSI monopoly on .com, .org, and .net.
Harold, do not waste any more of your fine mind responding to the
utterances of the Crock.--MM
