Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

Let me restate what I passed on last night in a more lucid manner - 3am
posts have definitely been crossed off my list....

>
> You missed the point. Under Kent's restrictions no one will want to bid.
> There is no reason to because there is no benefit in winning the bid.
> Would you work a full-time job that ONLY paid your basic living
> expenses, with absolutely no allowance for any profit or any other sort
> of reward, not even an ice-cream bar. Well, maybe they'll allow your
> name to appear in print once in a while. Oh yeah, they can take your job
> away from you, at any time, for any reason. Especially, if you start
> doing the job too well, you might get delusions of grandeur. It would be
> worse than living under fixed-income.
>
> Would you like such a job? Now put yourself in the place of a CEO with
> the opportunity to bid on such a gem. Such an RFP would find the
> shredder faster than last years marketing plan.

I went back and re-read Kent's post and no where did I see any mention that
the registry would have to run as a non-profit. My understanding is that
potential registries would bid on the namespace they wanted to run and based
on the strength of their proposal and business model, one of them would be
awarded finite rights to administer the TLD in question. The success or
failure of the namespace would rest with the efforts of the registry, but
because of the finite nature of the contract, could be rebid within a
reasonable period of time to allow for continued competition and innovation
at the registry level. Obviously this can't be a non-profit proposition.

>
> >gTLD registries need to be run in the interests of the internet
> > public - to offer exclusive rights *and* allow the registry to pick
> their TLD
> > is insane. Look at IO...anything, as long as it's .web.
>
> I fail to see the relevance of this reference.

My implication was purely meant to point out the challenges we will all face
if we let registries run proprietary TLDs. Allowing a registry to both pick
their TLD and give them exclusive rights over it simply creates an
environment where the best interests of the registrants are disregarded due
to the monopolostic status of the registry. This is precisely what is
happening now with NSI, and I predict that precisely the same thing will
occur if IO gets to run .web under the rules that Ambler has proposed.

Again, I apologize if my last message was less than clear.

>
> > I would like to think that we are beyond Fordisms in this
> > discussion...
>
> What's a "Fordism"? The reference to Marx was pertinent because he
> invented that particular blind-spot (human motivation). Other references
> to socialism and communism are incidental and irrelevant. Please, don't
> go there, I wasn't.
>

No, not at all. Like I said, 3am isn't exactly the best time for me to
undertake an intellectual discussion. I was referring to Henry's Ford"ism"
concerning choice - you can have any color you want as long as it's black...

To sum & clarify...

1.) There should be as many new TLDs created as the market can bear. (which
is presumably lots)
2.) These should be administered by the global governing body as a public
resource
3.) The rights to run the registries for these TLDs should be open for
tender and awarded on the basis of a fixed term, renewable and profit
centered contract.
4.) The business model employed by the registry would be determined by the
registry, except in the case of "special" TLDs where restricted registration
is desirable. If the TLD in question is a "special" TLD, both the registry
and the governing body will be required to negotiate the finer points of
administration and business model.
5.) Registries would be allowed to administer as many TLDs as they want to,
assuming that they are working within the confines of their pre-existing
contracts and that they tender successful bids for the additional TLD
administrations.

-RWR