Re[6]: [ga] Draft Resolution

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Dassa,

I am going to combined portions of two of your emails here, and
respond to the points, to colsolidate some of it.

Saturday, March 17, 2001, 10:41:40 PM, Dassa wrote:


|>> 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.

Ok, then I'll use the Oil companies and the gas companies as better
examples.

I really do not see namespace as a "global" resource that needs be
managed as some kind of public benefit.

When ever we start to see something turned into a "public benefit" we
see mismanagement.

This is much like the National Health systems in counties like Canada,
where for major non-life threatening procedures, they have to come to
the US and create "immediate" situations which justify them getting
those procedures done here in the US.

Bureaucracy never leads to a positive end, it breeds nothing but more
Bureaucracy.  NSI under their "government regulated" contract was a
perfect example.  The US Social Security system and Medicare system is
another.  Price caps won't change that, since they can always be
revised.  It's better to have competitive models where the market sets
the price.


> I can't see the comparison.  With the model I suggested there would still be
> competition, where it counts.

I don't agree that the registrar level is the only area where it
counts.  As in any competitive model, the suppliers compete with each
other, as well as the businesses who sell the products directly to the
consumer.  Levi's competes with Lee for market share in clothing
industry, and Target and Sears compete for market share in selling
those clothing items to the public.  The suppliers have to worry not
only about public sales market share, but about selling the stores on
carrying their products in order to get them out in front of the
customers.

Registries will need to compete with each other in order to get the
registrars to market their domains.  The more competitive they are in
their dealing with the registrars, the more likely the registrars are
to promote those TLDs.

Simply because they can promote a certain TLD is not enough. For
example, look at OpenSRS RSPs who can sell com/net/org as well as .tv,
.ca, and co.uk/org.uk.   While all of them are selling com/net/org
domains, only a small number are actively promoting the others.  Why?
Because the incentive is not there to do so.  A .ca domain or a .tv
domain costs more, and the .uk domains are less attractive to the end
users since they are third level domains.  More offer co.uk domains
than offer .ca or .tv domains, though, because of the price factor.

The same will be true for the new TLDs.  They will need to compete for
price, for customer attractability, etc.

> Instead of competition at the Registry level you
> would have the price fixed at the lowest possible level.

Well, I don't agree with this concept at all.  The historical record
shows that this kind of structure doesn't work nearly as well as a
truly competitive market place does on its own.

|>> 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.

Of what infrastructure?  The infrastructure is privately owned, its
not in some public trust.  The entire internet is built around and by
commerical interests, and is largely owned by commercial interests.

|>> 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?

Yes.  But most will decide to be unrestricted gTLDs, simply because
that opens the most market potential to them.

> With commercialisation we often get the same and other factors introduced
> including market glut and the failure of a proportion of the entities involved.

I don't consider failure of a registry or registrar to be something
that has to be avoided at all costs.  I think this is a part of any
healthy industry, and when you try and remove something like that from
the equation, you end up causing more harm than good.

> They also try to exploit markets, often having detrimental effects on end users.

Only in markets that are not truly competitive.  The more competitive
the market, the more harm that can come to companies who do not
provide the best possible solution for the market.

> There are limited protection layers for end users.

The law and courts usually provide those protection layers.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.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