Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 10:03:22AM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> 
> >The NSI registry is quite constrained in its business model, Tony --
> >it is under strict price controls.
> 
> Kent,
> 
> Indeed...but that's only because of the size of its
> market share as a service provider, and it's voluntarily
> entering into an agreement with the Dept of Commerce.
> This is not uncommon in many industries and markets.
> 
> The agreements also require that if any similarly situated
> registry arises, they must be similarly treated.

So you forsee us going through the same long painful process we just 
went through with NSI as soon as we have another large registry -- 
without the factor of having the USG involved?

> That's very different from establishing a fixed
> far-reaching, obligatory model for all service providers.
> Doing this would be dangerous for ICANN's health. :-)

I think you have it backwards, Tony -- *not* doing it would be bad 
for ICANN's health - .  What you call a "fixed far-reaching, obligatory 
model" I would call "a level playing field".

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain