Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Craig Simon wrote:

>The flop of .us demonstrates that is easier to commodify a flatter name
>space. The problem is not the not-for-profit shared registry model;
>Nominet works.

And there's the obvious flaw in your argument:
Nominet works. In other words, a shared registry that is well-managed can coexist
perfectly well with a proprietary one (com, net, org). I daresay that if ICANN
follows my advice and creates 20 new gTLDs specifically allocated to Europe,
Nominet might be quite happy about it.

> Not that I'm convinced that a mixed model is workable, Milton, but how
> would you decide which entities should be entitled to own which TLD in
> perpetuity? What criteria would determine whether .web (or any zone)
> should be constituted as a publicly or privately owned registry?

Human intention (you ought to like that answer!). We decide, or ICANN decides,
based on applications to it from registries and subject to certain legal and/or
practical constraints regarding prior claims. This is not a specific proposal of
course, and we would have to be careful drafting one, but once we've decided on a
mixed model I don't see that as serious problem.

So, for example, let Ambler have web and Fenello have per as exclusives and let
Core have 3 other exclusives from their list. Announce an intention to authorize
20 more exclusives from each geographic region and start accepting applications.
At the same time, announce the names for 20 shared gTLDs in each region, or set up
a process to have regions define them.

What's the big deal? How did we decide how many TV channels would be allocated to
PBS and which would be licensed to commercial companies? How did we decide which
land would be set aside for national parks and which would be sold to real estate
developers? Is there something unprecedented here that I'm missing?

> And then, if some "good" zones can be privately owned, why should any others
> be shut out?

I'm not sure I understand this question, but it sounds like you are assuming that
it will only be desireable to operate exclusives. Nominet refutes this
notion.<lots of irrelevant stuff about dot US deleted>

> Markets are constructed. [blah, blah, blah].

> I would argue that one major challenge of public policy making is to
> begin with a recognition of how the playing field itself is structured
> to favor certain types of outcomes. What types of outcomes are more
> valued than others? Dramatic innovation prompted by vast tournament-type
> rewards to the innovator and practically nothing left over for the
> losers, or more stable and widely distributed growth in wealth, even if
> the overall incentives and rewards for innovation are lower? Those
> aren't the only choices, but the choices are being made as a consequence
> of these struggles.

Exactly. It is clear that one structure [proprietary, exclusive TLDs] favors
dramatic innovation, and another [shared TLDs] favors perhaps greater stability
and perhaps more careful regulation for users. Society can capture the benefits of
both. So, Do them both.

> > that alarm that won't go off.....it's not unrelated to the ICANN DNSO
> > situation.
>
> The guy later claimed it was broken and "there was nothing he could do
> about it," as if it wasn't in his hands. But it always is. We are not
> machines subject to the rule of some impersonal hand, whether its your
> despised "dead hand of government" or your cherished invisible hand of
> the market.

You must be tired. You're starting to spout constructivist formulas out of
context. It's not like you to let a good-humored metaphor about ICANN zip right
past you like that.

__MM