Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] "Public" resources

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

>
>You are using NSI as a basis for what would happen when there are
>competitive registries in competitive TLDs.  This is absolutely faulty
>logic to use what has happened with a monopolistic situation with one
>company controlling all the gTLDs to allude to what would happen when
>different organizations are managing competing TLDs.


Sort of, my statements were purely intended to illustrate my deep seated
(and at times irrational) opposition against anything NSI in nature.

>
>There is absolutely no way to draw conclusions on the disadvantages of
>commercial competitive registries by using what has happened when one
>commercial companies had a monopoly on all gTLDs.
>
>So I will agree with you, lets not let this happen again.  Lets
>introduce competitive TLDs and registries, and make sure that this
>market is REALLY an open and competitive market, and then the
>registries will HAVE to act in a fashion that makes them competitively
>attractive to their desired markets.


While a 100% competitive model would likely be in the best interests of the
firm that I represent here, I am left wondering if there isn't a better way
to tip the scales in favor of the public by requiring that at least some
portions of the namespace be left under 100% control of ICANN. (ie -
Registries must rebid every three years or some other type of
reclamation/re-tender procedure). We would be doing the public a disservice
if we didn't somehow account for the fact that companies go out of business
and/or lose interest in certain parts of their operations. It would be
pretty tough to explain to hundreds of domain holders that (pardon the
example Chris) IO was no longer supporting the .web tld, but that no one
else could because Chris owned the IP to it...

-RWR