Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 01:43:59PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
[...]
> on the second, i have heard only one argument in favor of uniform policy
> which i consider cogent.  a low-ball anything-goes registrar would capture
> the sleaze/cybersquatter market and make it quite difficult to pursue
> sleaze, especially in a multi-national context.

There is a more subtle issue.  A plethora of DRPs encourages arbitrage
in them.  Therefore, there will be considerable competitive pressure
toward low-ball anything-goes policy.  This is the structural
equivalent of Greshem's law that the bad money will drive out the
good. 

  i am undecided, but might
> become more convinced if someone were to propose a *minimal* uniform policy
> to minimize this problem while not preventing market differentiation and
> experimentation in this area.  and i am told that recent court cases have
> already made cybersquatting a less viable strategy.

Less viable, perhaps.  However, that only applies if the
cybersquatter is not able to shop jurisdictions as well as DRPs. 

> if so, is this
> sufficient?  if not, what is the minimal thing we need to help here?

The WIPO report studied this exact issue with a great deal more 
expertise than is going to be found on this list.  Frankly, I don't 
think that ICANN really has the option of ignoring it.  The basic 
oversight over ICANN at this point in time comes from the USG, and 
the USG essentially commissioned the WIPO report.

So, to answer your question, IMO something very similar to the WIPO 
report *is* the minimum thing we need.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain