RE: Re[6]: [ga] Draft Resolution

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

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 6:42 PM
|> Subject: Re[6]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> Hello Dassa,
|>
|> I am going to combined portions of two of your emails here, and
|> respond to the points, to colsolidate some of it.

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

The Oil Companies are at present, or the last I heard, discussing limiting the
production of oil to increase prices.  It is well known that the current price
of oil is "artificial" as it is with diamonds.  Do you really want to use these
as models for your discussion?

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

You don't?  Is that one of the primary functions of ICANN.  The fact they
delegate the responsibility to others be they commercial or non-commercial does
not limit ICANN responsibility in this issue.  If it isn't a global resource to
be managed for public benefit, what is ICANN doing controlling the name space?

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

Not always but I agree that this has unfortunately been the case in a number of
examples.  That does not mean mismanagement will always be the consequence
however.

|> 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.

There are a number of reasons for such situations.  I also doubt you would find
the solution in making them totally commercial in nature either.  That would
just cause greater rifts where those who can not afford it will still try to get
treatment in other ways.  It will just mean that more people will not be able to
afford the protection they need.

|> 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.

If it is possible to set up a competitive model at the Registry level I do not
have any real objection.  I don't really see it as being necessary but can
appreciate that others do.

|> > 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.

I do not believe competitive forces at the Registry level will equate to better
use of the name space.  I see it causing a limited number of TLD's being very
competitive and offered at lower prices whilst the majority will be little used
and there will not be any price benefits.  I would rather see promotion of
policies that would increase the spread across all the name space.

|> 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.

This sounds reasonable.

|> 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.

Price would appear to be only a minor criteria at the market level.  But will
concede that such a model would have the price of .com and other in demand TLD's
go higher whilst unattractive TLD's would fall in price.  This may force a
spread across more of the name space.

|> > 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.

I would disagree but then I have not seen too many truly competitive markets.
For the majority there are a number of limiting factors already built in.  I
will have to think about this point.

|> |>> 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.

I consider the name space as part of the infrastructure, it is not privately
owned and is currently controlled by ICANN.  The physical structures may be for
the most part owned by commercial interests, I agree.

|> |>> 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.

This is true, as we saw with the implementation of .org.

|> > 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.

The data a Registry holds is something that must be protected.  The entities
responsible for it must be accountable to the end users.  I see having
non-commercial entities with the responsibility as being more attractive.

|> > 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.

In truly competitive markets you would find a tendency for companies to take
more risks in attempts to bolster market share, this is a danger in itself.

|> > There are limited protection layers for end users.
|>
|> The law and courts usually provide those protection layers.

Which in the majority of cases would be US law and US courts even for those
users in other countries.

BTW...I am not totally opposed to the model you are promoting.  I am interested
in seeing discussion on alternatives however.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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