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

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.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.

The only reason to NOT re-bid the running of a gTLD on a regular basis is
that the entity running it would thus be able to sit back and relax. I don't
see this as something positive for everyone else. Rather the contrary.

You want to see clauses in the contract that protect everyone from getting
bad service, don't you. How about a clause like "as long as company X can
give the best service for gTLD, they will run it". Bit drastic eh? Don't you
think it's better to somehow guarantee a certain length of operation rather
than none at all?

> > 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.

No matter how large the number of new gTLDs, there will be MANY cases where
there is no other choice. If you have gTLDs like "city" or "car"/"auto"
"sport" "law" "finance" "bank" "museum" "hotel" "restaurant" "airline"... or
whatever, then an entity REALISTICALLY won't have a choice as to which gTLD
it goes under.
Just as an exercise to the reader, decide how many choices each of the
following have as to under which of those example TLDs above they could be
registered under:
New York City Council
Air France
London Tate Gallery
VISA
Barclays
Renault
Nike
...

You can say as much as you want that more gTLDs make for more choice. The
truth is that as a whole, entities will be under many more gTLDs, but each
separate entity won't have much more of a choice than it has today (a little
more maybe). If you add 1000 gTLDs, an entity won't REALISTICALLY have one
thousand more choices, it will only have maybe one or two more in addition
to its current choice of com/net/org/ccTLD. More gTLDs serve to reduce the
jam we have in ".com", they also (to an extent) clarify a bit what a domain
name MIGHT be about (delta.com is what? delta.airline is a bit clearer),
though confusing it with a directory system might not be a good thing...
ANY gTLD will remain a monopoly locking in customers and not allowing them
to have a REAL choice as to where to go (nike will NOT register under
.airline or .law for example -unless they somehow think it's a good idea to
do so to protect their trademark, dunno-).

> > 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.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. However, if you think that *just*
with that you have enough protection, there I disagree completely.

> > 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.

I agree completely with you. In fact, I can't really see anyone just for the
hell of it creating a non-profit registry maintaining entity. I would guess
that all companies bidding for the job of running the backend database of
any given TLD(s) would actually be FOR profit (like Emergent, or the NSI
registry, or IOD -if they decide "ok, let's try and run a registry").
Once you tender something, I can't see the reasoning in somehow granting
god-status to an entity because it is non-profit.

> 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.

As usual, until we have clarification on NSI, we're arm flapping.
(and strange things happen with pigs apparently)

Yours, John Broomfield.