RE: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 4:57 PM
|> Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
Hi WX
|>
|> > That would depend on the structure used.  A number of the ccTLD's
Registries
|> > operate as non-commercial entities.  I see no evidence this has led to
|> > inefficiencies or higher costs.
|>
|> Have you looked at the prices being charged in many of these ccTLDs?
|> I've seen some as high as $1,000 a year.

Yes and some a lot lower, those are the Registrar prices though aren't they, do
we have any indication of the charges for the Registries?

|> I also say, though, that the ccTLDs as a group are not a good example
|> for these kinds of issues.

True, but they are the closest structures to what I envisage as the ideal.

|> > I see the Registries as being a major part of the infrastructure,  not as
part of
|> > the commercial interests.  At the Registrar level, competition and
commercial
|> > factors should be encouraged, this is the level it belongs, where the
consumers
|> > are.  If we follow your reasoning, ICANN should itself be a commercial
entity.
|>
|> ICANN isn't a supplier though.  At least in my opinion they shouldn't
|> be.  The registries are suppliers to the registrars.

ICANN is a supplier, as the ability to make contracts for the Registries
indicates.  If they were not a supplier they would not be able to sign off on
the contracts.

|> Under this logic, car makers would be non-profit, since the car
|> dealers are the ones who deal with the public.

Do not follow this logic, car makers are not handling a global resource of
similar nature to the Internet.

|> I can't support that kind of a model.  Registries should be competitive as
well.

I do not see the need for it but obviously others do.  I suggest it is possible
to do so and still build a structure acceptable to us all.

|> > I've seen this argument raised a number of times but I still fail to see it
in
|> > practical examples.
|>
|> Look at any industry where there is a monopoly at play.   It was
|> pointed out in the Microsoft trial, for instance, that had the OS
|> market been competitive, like the Accounting Software market for
|> example, the price of the OS would have been vastly lower over time,
|> rather than progressively increasing in price as MS's Operating system
|> prices were.  Also, between versions, less innovation in actual
|> enhancements and benefits were seen, compared to other more
|> competitive aspects of the software industry.

I can't see the comparison.  With the model I suggested there would still be
competition, where it counts.  Instead of competition at the Registry level you
would have the price fixed at the lowest possible level.  Market forces would
work at the higher Registrar level and would assist in driving innovation and
enhancements.  At the lower Registry level, development would continue under
strict funding that would keep the price low.

|> The market should drive the policies, in a competitive environment,
|> non-profit "control" lends itself to a more "controlling" environment
|> by bodies like ICANN and other "regulatory" groups who may decide they
|> should dictate policies for TLDs.

One of the policies should be to maintain protection of the infrastructure, I do
not see the protection in having commercial interests looking after the
Registries.

|> For example, I would NOT want a group like the SBA controlling policy
|> for who could register in a .biz TLD.

But you are willing to have commercial interests decide who may register under
any given TLD?

Personally, I would like to see no restriction on who may register under any
TLD, even the CCTLD's.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.


--
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