RE: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums,we can as k substantive questions

["Alf Hansen" <Alf.Hansen@uninett.no>]

Bret,

I firmly believe that the Registry-Registar model is the best choise for
.no. A small not for profit Registry "doing as little as possible" and a
large number of competing Registrars (commercial).

If someone would like to analyse this formally, I would perhaps read the
report, but I am not sure it will be useful.

Best regards,
Alf H
.NO

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Bret
> Fausett
> Sent: 5. mars 2001 05:36
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
> forums,we can as k substantive questions
>
>
> Here's a substantive question, and I'd like to see ICANN commission an
> independent substantive analysis of it.
>
> I don't pretend to know whether the registry-registrar split was either a
> good idea in 1999 when it was first agreed or still a good idea
> now. I think
> we ought to do whatever maximizes competition in this space, but
> I am not an
> economist and have no idea which alternative best enhances the competitive
> landscape.
>
> Market regulation of this type is complex. To the best of my
> knowledge, the
> Board has commissioned no independent economic studies on the
> market effects
> of the split, or non-split, so at present it is wholly reliant on our
> collective wet finger in the wind to make the determination.
>
> I'd like to see an independent economic analysis of the likely comparative
> long term market effects of (a) splitting the registry and
> registrar on the
> model contained in the 1999 agreements; and (b) not splitting the registry
> and registrar, but peeling off .org and .net over time.
>
> I don't know how much it would cost, who would do it, or how quickly it
> could be done, but without such an expert opinion, we're all just
> guessing.
> The Board included. We might still be guessing after the report, but at
> least it would be a more informed decision.
>
> The firm that does this should be retained in advance of Melbourne. It
> should attend the Melbourne meeting, listen to the public comments, and
> prepare a report for publication within a short time thereafter.
>
>   -- Bret
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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