Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

L. Gallegos wrote:
>
>If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue
>would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.  In the
>case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in
>town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced to register
>in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge
>consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.
>  However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still fixes the
>registry fee.
>
>Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would
>have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to
>compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but that is no
>different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If you don't
>like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company,
>choose another.
>

I agree completely.
Although the change of Registry might not as easy as change insurance 
company, the essence of the matter is to provide more competition at the 
Registry level, and this can only be done by creating more TLDs.

The great expectation I personally had with the creation of ICANN was to 
have a body that could have managed the process of expansion of the domain 
name space at the same time creating the conditions for more competition, 
and hopefully more advantages for the consumers.
The situation few years later is before us.
Only seven gTLDs have been added, some of which "restricted", and therefore 
not in a position to cotribute to the competition, most of which with 
similar business models, dispute resolution mechanisms, and what else.
Moreover, the largest TLD in the market has been allowed to keep its 
Registry and Registrar capability, which is a limitation of the competition 
from other Registrars in the same TLD.

You all know that I am opposed to alt.roots, but I confess I had hoped, at 
one point in time, that at least they could constitute a threat to move 
ICANN towards a more prompt delegation of new Registries.
It did not work either.

Now the issue of creation of new TLDs is not even in ICANN's agenda. If I 
remember correctly, the process for the initial 7 should have given 
information to improve the process and do it better the second time.
Just like the AtLarge elections.

Danny rightfully complaints about participation. I am personally still 
unable to find sufficient motivation to drop other things that I am doing to 
make time for ICANN things, but the subjects where I would like to see more 
focus are exactly these two: new TLDs and participation by the 
non-corporate-controlled interests.

Best regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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