Re: [wg-c] Re: Importance of the Registry

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Glory be :-)  Consensus emerges, little by little :-)

>>> Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 07/21/99 01:46PM >>> wrote:

>Some interesting points are made here.

>Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

>> There is a difference between, for example, between
>> Calvin Klein's monopoly of CKone fragrance and the created monopoly
>> of granting control over a top level domain by fiat.  The former protects
>> both the public and private interest in "brandedness" of goods and
>> services, preventing free riding and ensuring that consumers can be
>> informed as to the characteristics and quality of what they purchase;

>There is no difference at all, and this is precisely the reason why some of us want
>to create space for exclusive gTLDs. The uniqueness of the TLD and the exclusive
>right to administer the TLD extension "brands" a domain name. 

Calvin Klein did not have to get leave from anyone for his retinue to 
create a fragrance and apply his brand to it.  Anyone who gets a TLD 
has to get leave from whoever is the gatekeeper of the A-root in order 
for an entry to be created therein pointing to the new zone file.

{snip}

>> latter is simply the outright grant of valuable rights for the enrichment of a
>> single individual or enterprise.  It's hard to see the difference between
>> (A) granting exclusive rights to control the .any registry to a profit-making
>> developer and (B) Jacobean grants of land in the New World to relatives
>> and cronies as proprietary colonies.

>The illegitimacy of the colonial grants of land stemmed from the fact that 
>other people already lived on the land, and that the claims were 
>enforced by conquest. 

I'm not even getting to that exalted state of thought.  Assume that the New
World was a true res nullius, unoccupied by sapient life.  There is still a 
degree of illegitimacy in the creation of  economic value by fiat and its
arbitrary allocation to a favored few.  These problems can be avoided
if the res nullius (the new namespace) is delegated under principles of
stewardship.

>But please tell me, assuming that you do believe 
>in the right to privately own and develop land, how does one establish a 
>legitimate claim to ownership to real
>property? Generally, it comes from first occupation and from some form of use. Or it
>comes from a grant by a government authority; e.g., the great Oklahoma land rush in
>the US, in which government turned state-owned land over to private homesteaders.

There is a world of difference.  There is only one legacy root.  The namespace 
which it is capable of containing is part of the common heritage of mankind, and,
as such, should not be appropriated for private gain.  This is why the very first 
value-laden policy elaborated by the gTLD-MoU is:


"Section Two.  The following principles are adopted: 

   a.the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is 
a public resource and is subject to the public trust."


>(Parenthetically, any land tract is a "monopoly" in the same sense that gTLDs are
>"monopolies"--its location and terrain and features make it slightly different from
>any other tract of land. Is this an argument for global socialism? Clearly not. There
>are markets for real estate.)

The root is not like any of the zones, and sure is not like 60 acres of
good land on the prairie.  And ultimately, while we spout and fume about
this gTLD and that gTLD, what we're really fighting over is the control
of the root.

>I don't see why private parties shouldn't gain an exclusive right to administer a
>zone file in a similar manner. Again, I advocate this within the context of also
>creating shared registries. There are advantages and disadvantages to the proprietary
>model, as there are to the shared model. We can do both.

If the private party elaborates its TLD within the framework of an alternate
set of root servers, then I concur that this model is appropriate.  In fact, the .web
registry of IODesign fits this model today.  However, IOD's .web zonefile is not
"visible to the Internet."  Even though you can connect to the alternate root servers
that provide nameservice for the IOD .web domain, .web is not presently on the internet.

(Engineering purists may disagree, on the ground that [I think] you get the
alternate root information off of a TCP/IP connection.  However, ever since
the Internet became a mass medium rather than a hobbyist's toy, the technodweeb's
definition of the Internet has lost most of its significance.)

>> On the other hand, if we establish criteria for registry operations which
>> include (A) shared registration systems and (B) _some_ mechanism for
>> preventing the owner/operator of the registry from exacting monopoly
>> profits, then we have a system which will enhance the growth of the
>> Internet.  I am not going to suggest that we erect an Internet Rate
>> Commission which would have the power to control registry prices.

>This is a key point that is not appreciated well enough by most discussants. Under a
>shared system, the registry monopoly still exists. The real check on it is not the
>existence of multiple competing registrars, but whatever system of *regulation* is
>imposed on the registry. This is clearly evident in opening up com net and org. The
>cost reduction came not from registrar competition, but from a NTIA contract that
>fixed the wholesale price at a regulated level.

>One of the things that bothers me about the shared registry option is that many
>people seem to have in mind a *single* global shared registry. 

Oh, by Harry's green backside, who has made such a silly suggestion?

>This is a Bad Idea.

I concur.

>Such a centralization of regulatory control has technical, economic, and political
>drawbacks that are too numerous to mention here.

>The other "regulatory" model, discussed by Kevin below, is much better. It relies on
>shared ownership rather than government regulation. But the model is much more
>workable and desirable in a diverse setting.

>Look at Nominet as a model for diverse, competing clusters of  gTLDs that are shared
>by a bunch of registrars but exclusive to that group. You say, this is a "shared
>model." I say, yes, but the organization Nominet has *exclusive* control of the right
>to register names under dot UK. In either case, you are handing out an exclusive
>property right. So perhaps we should tone down the rhetoric a bit and talk about what
>works.

Okay, I concur again.  And let it not be forgotten that CORE was inspired 
by Nominet.  CORE's RFP for the creation and operation of its Shared Reg-
istration System was coauthored by one of the founders of Nominet.  If we've 
gotten to the point of classifying a Nominet-style registry as proprietary, then we've
come full circle.

>In fact, I suspect that most so-called exclusive registries would develop marketing
>relationships with registrars.

This would be bad, because it would deprive the market of a level playing field.

> I just prefer a market organization that gives room to
>all models, and that lets the selection of the model itself be a response to the
>market and to consumer preferences, and not imposed on them.

Okay, if we wish to avoid the creation of new monopolies which will be
free to gouge whatever they wish from the Internet user, how do we
reach that laudable objective short of requiring the Registry to accept
all registrars that meet certain robust, objectively-verifiable and approved
criteria?

>> Finally,   I think we need to convince the NTIA that the system ultimately put
>> into place will not require ongoing governmental oversight.

>Nothing would make NTIA happier!

Progress, for once.  Let's keep the ball rolling :-)

KJC
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************