Re: SV: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal)

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

One of the dangers of so-called "industry self-regulation" that was explicitly
recognized by the Federal Trade Commission was the possibility that certain
industry interests can coalesce in restraint of trade.

This seems to be happening now. We have a commercially marketed ccTLD registry
(Bill Semich) telling us that he does not support any new competition from open
gTLDs. He is being supported by trademark interests who also have an economic
self-interest in restricting the market. While the trademark lobby has some
legitimate concerns about infringement, I made the point loong ago that legal
business activity cannot be forclosed or unfuly restricted simply because it
creates a possibility that infringement will occur in one one hundredth of one
percent of all registrations.

ICANN's board should be deeply aware of the danger of litigation is these kind
of rationales are used to stifle the market for domain name registrations.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> William
>
> My company has from its original postings in the Green Paper and White paper
> supported a slow, controlled, and thoughtful expansion -- suggesting that
> 1-3 could be possible number, but that we needed to start with a controlled
> trial of only one, with an evaluation before  proceeding further.
>
> I understand that you prefer to think that we are totallly opposed to
> expansion. That isn't the case. BUT we are totally committed to a thoughtful
> approach to any expansion.
>
> I do not agree that 6-10 represents a compromise. I continue to support
> Bill's formulation of a compromise approach.
>
> Best regards,
> Marilyn Cade
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 11:39 AM
> To: Petter Rindforth
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: SV: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal)
>
> Monday, September 06, 1999, 8:19:31 AM, Petter Rindforth
> <petter.rindforth@enderborg.se> wrote:
>
> > Bill, Marilyn, and All Others,
> > I strongly agree!
>
> And would any of you object to a policy that there would be NO new
> TLDs?
>
> I think this needs to be taken into account, that these people have a
> strong interest in there being NO expansion of the TLD space, or at
> the very least a very strongly controlled expansion, though no
> expansion would be preferable.
>
> Rather than all of us going back to our original positions, as far
> from each other as they are, we ALL need to be working on areas of
> compromise, including those who have a vested interest (sometimes
> financial) in limiting expansion of namespace.
>
> I think the 6-10 plan is getting close to that compromise area.
>
> Let's not try and take a step backwards, please.
>
> --
> William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
> Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
> Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
>
> Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list!
> http://www.dnspolicy.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss
> <IDNO MEMBER) http://www.idno.org



--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/