Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 09:38:57PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > If ICANN grants a single franchise for a TLD registry, Chris claims
> > that he can sue ICANN for restraint of trade.  As I recall the
> > PGMedia case mooted the issue because NSI was working as a government
> > contractor.  But the issue of whether ICANN would be vulnerable to
> > such a claim is, to my limited legal knowledge, still open -- ICANN
> > will be a private entity, not a gov contractor.
> 
> It is not an open issue. The White Paper specifically raised the
> antitrust issue and explicitly included language ICANN is subject to
> antitrust challenges. There is no immunity.

ICANN could easily be not vulnerable, and at the same time not
immune.  Vulnerability is the open issue, not immunity.  

[...]

> > There are tens of thousands of such companies,
> > probably hundreds of thousands.
> 
> Ridiculous. You yourself calculated the meager revenue stream that could
> be expected from registration of domain names in an open market. There
> might at most be a few hundred.

The revenue stream is totally irrelevant.  The advertising value is 
the primary point.  Furthermore, nobody would really want a name in 
.ibm, except IBM.  Therefore, they would have essentially a private 
TLD.

Do you think there might be some demand for private TLDs?  Maybe 
more than a few hundred?

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain