Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

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

         In general, it's desirable that ICANN's structures be more nearly 
pro-competitive rather than anti-competitive.  Bret has suggested that a 
full, three-member gTLD constituency consisting only of incumbent 
registries will add an anticompetitive element to the ICANN structure, 
because incumbent registries will have an interest in opposing the addition 
of new entramts into their market -- and that a constituency that also 
included registry applicants would be more balanced.  Kent's answer, as 
best I understand it, is [1] an existing registry would favor the addition 
of a new TLD if it were proposing to operate that new TLD itself (but for 
the foreseeable future, there is *no* reason to believe ICANN will depart 
from its one-to-a-customer policy); [2] an existing registry might favor 
the addition of a particular new TLD where it believed that the applicant 
was undercapitalized and that it would later be able to, and would get 
ICANN permission to, purchase that newcomer (surely a longshot plan for the 
incumbent); and [3] anyway, it could be worse -- after all, if the gTLD 
constituency had more votes, the resulting structure would be even *more* 
anticompetitive.

         It doesn't seem to me that this response undercuts Bret's point at 
all.

Jon


At 01:04 PM 4/9/2001 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:10:39PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > This is a valuable thread and worthy of further consideration, if not
> > action. There needs to be a role for the prospective TLDs in the policy
> > process for future TLDs, evaluation of the testbed, and the reform of the
> > new TLD application process. They've certainly shown they are serious about
> > the ICANN process -- the $50,000 fee was more than a token.
> >
> > By not balancing the formal representation on the NC, there's a real
> > incentive for the current gTLD registries to use their votes to slow, 
> if not
> > block, the addition of any new TLDs beyond the seven currently approved.
>
>But 1) while plausible, the notion that the gTLD constituency would be
>united on this front is only a simplistic cartoon, and there are many
>scenarios where it simply doesn't hold (*); 2) it's only 3 votes out of
>21.
>
> > We at least need to be cognizant of the anti-competitive potential in
> > allowing existing market participants to have 3 votes on whether additional
> > competitors can have access to the registration market.
>
>Sure, be cognizant.  We need to be cognizant of lots of things.
>
>(*) You are overlooking, for example, the fact that a tld and a registry
>are not the same thing.  New TLDs offer opportunities for *old*
>registries.  And even if the new TLD comes with a new registry, new
>registries can be acquired, after the new registry spends its capital
>in an initial marketing push.

--
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