Re[4]: [wg-c] "Public" resources

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Monday, August 09, 1999, 10:31:06 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com> wrote:


>>
>>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...

So then rather then go to the extreme you mention above  :)  how about
a more reasonable contract provision that says that the TLD must
maintain certain minimum operational standards, and that the
performance/insolvency clause will come into play if not.

I've already made suggestions that the contracts that permit new TLDs
into the root can be made to provide reasonable
performance/operational protections without draconian anticommercial
provisions.

I'm not advocating a totally unregulated free for all, and I don't
think Chris was either.



--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934


(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org