Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 08:43 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, Bret Fausett wrote:
>Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > That .org is run by a non-profit does not in principle mean it cannot be a
> > competitor, since organizational form does not determine registration 
> policy.
>
>And vice-versa...that .org is run by a for-profit company does not in
>principle mean the company cannot run the TLD in a way that maximizes the
>benefit for its customers. If .org has a charter that effectively limits
>those customers to non-profits and individuals, say, then there's not much
>difference between a for-profit and a non-profit TLD operator.
>
>I can't think of any reason to artificially limit the bidders for .org to
>non-profits (other than optics). We ought to open it to anyone who wants to
>make a bid and then see what we get.


         Back when folks were discussing these matters a year or two ago, 
the argument was made that a nonprofit is less likely to hike prices way 
above cost so as to maximize the registry's revenues.  After all, if there 
is only one registry directed to nonprofits, and nonprofits see value in 
being located there, then that registry operator has market power it can 
exploit.  It certainly has some market power over *current* 
registrants.  Folks on the other side of the argument pointed out that 
nonprofits are themselves perfectly capable of charging bloated prices, 
largely because they are not subject to market discipline; still other 
folks urged that the best way to keep prices down would be to make the 
registry an open registrar cooperative on the Nominet model.  Now that 
ICANN itself seems to be engaging in direct price regulation for each new 
registry, though (all four of the new TLD agreements posted on 
<http://www.icann.org/melbourne/new-tld-agreements-topic.htm> specify what 
that registry can charge), these issues seem beside the point.  Any 
registry, for-profit or nonprofit, is likely to set its charges at whatever 
price point ICANN authorizes.

         Another reason why ICANN might want a nonprofit in charge of a 
particular TLD might relate to ICANN staff's vision of .org as a restricted 
TLD.  In all three of the sponsored TLDs ICANN has approved, the sponsoring 
organization is a nonprofit (though, in one case, it is a nonprofit trade 
association composed entirely of for-profit companies).  The reason in that 
in each of those cases, the sponsoring organization will be setting and 
implementing registration policy, and ICANN staff concluded that a 
particular nonprofit organization would be the most trustworthy wielder of 
that power.  On the other hand, I think the recent furor over .org 
demonstrates that the Internet community would not be willing to see ICANN 
delegate significant policy authority over .org to any new body; rather, if 
restrictions are to be placed on registration on .org, they should be 
imposed by ICANN itself, in full public view and with the benefit of public 
comment.  And it is not an easy thing (as the DNSO itself demonstrates) to 
simply create a new, well-functioning, representative organization whenever 
ICANN staff think it would be convenient to have one.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html