Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

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

Karl Auerbach wrote:

>However, I do not like the intense regulatory system that ICANN has become
>- at some point ICANN has to step back and get out of the way.  I disagree
>somewhat with P.D. Thrush's point that the regulation has to occur
>somewhere - to me that begs the question regarding whether regulation of
>certain matters is necessary at all.)

I skipped the WLS-related part, as the vote has already taken place and the 
matter is no longer actual, but I would like to address the regulation 
thing.

I have mixed feelings about the regulation. In principle, if ICANN is an 
industry self-management body, it should provide only recommendation on the 
ethic rules to be followed, but not get into regulation. But this can be 
true in a sector where competition exists: what if in the sector you have 
"natural monopolies" like the Registries? I tend to agree with Peter, some 
degree of regulation is needed, if not for else, for protecting consumers or 
weaker actors.
I know it is a rather theoretical discussion, but in one way or the other we 
have to discuss it.
A completely different matter is if the role of "moderate regulation" is 
appropriate for ICANN or will be more appropriate for a body of different 
type (inter-governmental?). I donīt have the answer, I just throw in the 
questions.
In a prior discussion on ICANNīs reform you pointed out your approach (see 
http://www.CaveBear.com/rw/apfi.htm). If you donīt think that all functions 
you detail have to be taken by the same body, we have two separate 
questions:
- should a certain "moderate regulation" exist, given the peculiar situation 
of this market?
- should the regulator be a private company incorporated somewhere (ICANN or 
equivalent)?

>For example - ICANN is imposing business models.  ICANN's mechanisms rule
>out potentially innovative and useful alternatives.

Maybe true.
But in the example of WLS, Verisign is in the position of imposing the 
business model and killing the competition. But this not due to innovation, 
but due to their predominant position, that comes from the "original sin" of 
being the government subcontractor (therefore their position has been 
*generated* by regulation, they canīt complain about regulation now).
What I am trying to say is that it might happen that quasi-monopoly 
situations arise: first Xerox then Canon in the photocopying business, first 
IBM then MS in computer, and so on. The position has been built by 
innovation and lost because of further innovation by competitors. All this 
is healthy business.
But less healthy for the industry is a situation in which a quasi-monopoly 
is acquired via regulation (governemt contract) and kept via regulation (no 
gTLDs added). Under these circumstances I believe that we canīt sing the 
"regulation is bad" song when an attempt is made to give a chance to at 
least a certain degree of competition, by not allowing a model in which the 
monopoly part (the Registry) can reduce the margins of the competitive part 
(the Registrars)

Just food for thought, probably in a confused manner.
Regards
Roberto



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

--
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