Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> First, in a steady-state system, in which TLD's are delegated and
> subject to competitive redelegation, how will we level the playing
> field between non-profit and for-profit registries?

We don't, as the TLDs are not subject to competitive redelegation
except in cases where the registry is either insolvent or violates
its contract.

> Second, during the rollout, how will we guard against the creation
> of more NSIs (monopolists) if the creation of new TLDs/Registries
> stops short of the addition of <largenum>?

Determine <largenum> first. Answering the question without knowing
the parameters of the rollout is impossible. I propose that we do
not identify the number at all, instead, we identify the TIMETABLE
for rollout such that new registries are rolled out slowly enough to
ensure there are no problems, but consistently enough so that
prospective registries aren't stuck waiting while those who went
first get psuedo-monopoly advantage.

> The third problem (how to prevent a registry from renewal gouging)
> is actually a simple one:  insert a contractual mandate limiting the
increase
> of registry charges for SLD name renewals, based on some objective
> metric.  And actually enforce the provision, expressly providing that
> other prospective registry operators and SLD name registrants have
> standing to challenge any failure to enforce forfeiture of the TLD for
> renewal gouging.

Stand-up fantastic - I proposed this over 2 years ago.

> Now for a trial balloon on BP#1 and BP#2
>
> #1.  Level Playing Field.  "For-Profit" Registries will be required to
rebid their
> domains periodically.  The "best" bid is the one which produces the
smallest
> net revenue stream to the registry.

Ludicrous.

> A non-profit registry would not be subject to divestiture so long as
objective
> technical criteria were satisfied.

Apply this to all. To apply this to non-profit only would accomplish two
things.
First, it would set up an unfair trade situation of epic proportion. Second,
it
would make all registries set themselves up as non-profit, attempting to
find
legal loopholes (like large salaries, capital investment, etc) to remain so.

Face the reality of the situation.

Regardless, unless you can impose this on NSI, you cannot impose it on
new registries. Since it seems certain that NSI will have a contract
extension until 2004 in exchange for signing with ICANN, this whole
line of examination is moot.

Christopher