William and all,
There are a few minor problems with you approach, but overall
it is essentially correct. (See more below)
William X. Walsh wrote:
> 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.
To a point this is correct. Incentive is limited with respect to
innovation and improvement of services in a Non-Profit structure.
Conversely, much of this limitation is directly dependent on how
financial resources are allocated...
>
>
> 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.
Price capping has historically never worked and has had to be abandon
every time they were imposed.
>
>
> 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.
A very good contractual requirement.
>
>
> 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).
Even 25K is not anywhere near what is needed. At least 300k
performance bond should be required.
>
>
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
