Monday, August 16, 1999, 4:15:08 PM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are basic differences between a non-profit consortium that has
> oversight, versus a commercial monopoly with none.
This ignores one of the most basic economic principles.
Non-profit management provide no incentive for innovation and
improvement of services.
They use the "monopoly" or "lock-in" argument to justify it.
This is simply faulty logic. Every single one of the possible abuses
they note as justification for these arguments can be answered with
simple, and reasonable, contractual obligations.
This reasonable requirements can include such things as :
1) Restrictions on price increases, both in frequency and in amount.
2) Restrictions on IP assignment, requiring that should the registry
become insolvent or unable/unwilling to continue operating the TLD, or
should they default on their obligations under the contract, the
registry agrees the TLD shall be consigned to ICANN for reassignment,
along with ALL Associated IP, including the whois database.
3) Reasonable performance bond, to assist in funding the operation of
required services of the TLD while a new registry is bidded.
(Estimates place this at $10k to $25k US bond).
4) Requirement that whois information be available according to
uniform standards.
They can go on and include such things as customer satisfaction
standards (based on a variety of factors), etc.
There is no justification to limit the diversity of economic and
competitive models provided that the concerns regarding such issues as
monopoly, competition, lockin, etc, can be addressed with simple
contractual obligations. This will also limit the number of
registries, as not everyone will be able, or willing, to meet the
reasonable requirements, that will insure the registry is able to
operate a stable operation.
Instead the spread alarmist comments about the dire consequences of
commercial registries. Remember, these "consequences" are easily
addresses and enforced. It is this task that ICANN is charged with.
These details come under the "Technical details" ICANN has been
charged with.
In the absence of real quantifiable harms, the broadest possible
spectrum of models and operations should be embraced. This has LONG
been shown to be to the benefit of the market and the consumers.
Of course, the CORE supporters have a STRONG vested interest in
Registries NOT being able to offer services directly in a commercial
format, so that they can control the "registrar" industry, and thus
prevent the diversity of market that brings such strength to so many
broad areas of industries.
Regulation must be justified, and the minimal amount of regulation
used as necessary to protect the market and consumers.
This type of a proposal clearly is much less restrictive, and still
provides more than adequate protection, despite the alarmist rhetoric
engaged in by the "unbiased" CORE supporters.
--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
