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

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

         Whether the model of a thin, not-for-profit registry with many 
competing registrars is the best one for .no seems to me a question that is 
entirely the business of Uninett A/S and Norway's Internet 
community.  Bret's proposal, though, related to the fact that ICANN staff 
are now making important proposals about the registry-registrar structure 
of .com, where the model in place differs from Norway's in important 
ways.  For one thing, Verisign is not a not-for-profit.  For another, my 
guess is that Norway wouldn't allow the registry also to own the largest 
registrar (and to provide a wide range of domain-name value-added 
services).  It strikes me that some actual economic learning about the 
consequences of the actions that ICANN staff are proposing could not be a 
bad thing.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com


At 07:17 AM 3/5/2001 +0100, Alf Hansen wrote:
>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

--
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