Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Another interesting question: does NSI get to participate in new gTLDs?
Roeland raises interesting questions about the competitive implications of
this.
Another reason I oppose fully shared model is to prevent NSI from dominating
the market. How can any new registry compete without some exclusivity?

--MM

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> We are all, also, confusing new gTLDs with new registries. I am as
> guilty of that as the rest of us. My figures were about deploying new
> registries. Once a registry is deployed, it is trivial to impliment any
> number of additional gTLDs. The large problem is that the existing gTLD
> registry (NSI), is very adequately positioned to do exactly this, with
> an existing gTLD registry. The only thing stopping them from doing so is
> the existing moratorium on adding new TLDs in the roots. That and lack
> of competitive need to do so.
>
> A nacent registry would have a very difficult time competeing with NSI
> on any sort of equal footing. In fact, they wouldn't be. The numbers
> that I have published here are actually an estimate of what it would
> take to build a registry capable of competeing with NSI. Yes, it could
> be done cheaper, but it would not be market viable, IMHO. Those who
> criticize the cost estimates are clearly doing so without this
> understanding. The objective isn't to build a minimal, low-buck,
> registry, rather it is to build a competitive gTLD registry. Anything
> less and NSI would flatten it, make road pizza out of 'em. Any investor,
> in such a project, would require this level of competitiveness or they
> would not waste their money.
>