Re[4]: [wg-c] Eureka?

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

Monday, August 09, 1999, 10:52:40 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com> wrote:


>>
>>I don't see how this could happen, unless we fail to enter reasonable
>>safe guards.  There are ways to avoid this without introducing
>>anticommercial/anticompetitive rules.
>>
>>For example, dictate that in no event will one registry operated more
>>than X number of TLDs, nor shall any organization have "effective"
>>control over more than X number of TLDs (effective control to include
>>subsidiaries/etc of the organization), etc.
>>
>>Lets open a discussion on "reasonable" safe guards, and what they
>>would constitute.  I seem to remember a discussion in domain-policy
>>last year that seemed to have met no opposition in saying that no
>>organization shall ever operate or have control over more than 3 TLDs,
>>and that during the initial rollout, this number should be confined to
>>one.


> I would hope that number would actually be a lot larger. If we do move
> forward on the premise of infinite namespace, no scarce resources etc.,
> then restricting the number of gTLDs that a firm could operate to a small
> number would actually work against us. For instance, let's say we move
> ahead on this proposal and we have 500 tld's ready to go - but only 20
> registry operators? Additionally, these rules would make it impossible for
> NSI to play ball - the last time I checked, they currently run 5 gTLDs
> (.com, .net, .org, .gov and .edu)

> The safe guards that you imply seem to be rather weak. We could make this
> much simpler (stronger) if we allowed for a larger number, but put (forgive
> the analogy) A BBB type QC feedback loop into place to ensure that quality
> of service and operations is upheld. ICANN has already implemented minimum
> requirements for being accredited, can't we take this one step further to
> ensure that the best interests of the public are taken into account? (ie -
> if a TLD operator generates more than, say,  a 5% complaint to registration
> ratio, the "TLD Consumer Affairs Group" could decide to look into it
> further and take measures to ensure that the ratio is brought inline with
> the other registries.

> ??

This might need some fleshing out, and some STRICTLY worded
restrictions and guidelines spelling out the conditions under which
action could be taken.  Other than that, I don't see it as being
particularly unreasonable.

I might adjust the numbers some though.

As to the numbers of TLDs per registry, as a rule of thumb, I'd say
lets start with a low number per org and let the number grow.  My
numbers were meant only to get the ball rolling, and to provide a
starting point for the discussion.

--
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