Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > I'm not hostage taking. I'm arguing vehemently against your scenario, as I
> > find it a monopoly creation.
> 
> Non-profit is just as much a monopoly as for-profit.
> 
> And, to put the whole thing to rest, NSI has a for-profit registry, and has
> just been granted it for 4, perhaps 8 years. To limit new registries to
> non-profit only would be giving NSI the only for-profit registry. That
> is, to this non-lawyer, a huge antitrust violation.
> 
> You can argue as vehemently against for-profit as you like, but the
> plain facts are that it's too late - it's here and it's here to stay.
> I could argue that since the for-profit already exists, and is the ONLY
> model in operation now, it should be the only model allowed at all.
> I won't argue that, however, as I feel it's only fair to allow BOTH
> models.
> Christopher

I don't agree that the NSI scenario is currently a "for-profit" as you put
it.
ICANN has veto over how registrars interact with NSI-registry.
ICANN has veto over the price that NSI-registry sets to the registrars.
ICANN will rebid the running of the TLD in the future.
NSI has fully recognized ICANN and accepts its authority.
In other words, the issue over who owns com/net/org seems to be
agreed that it is ICANN.

Yes, it would have been better to rebid it straight away, but the fact is
that NSI had a firm hold on the current database, and legal wrangling would
probably have delayed it that much anyway... Plus of course the fact that
2/3 of the nets names (roughly) are hanging there so it's a bit delicate to
just shut them down in one go...

NSI DoC & ICANN all seem to have agreed that the scenario is open
competition to register in com/net/org with all on a same level field, and
open competition for anyone who wants to run com/net/org in the future.

To suddenly decide to create from scratch a monopoly situation straight
outright where IOD "owns" for all practical purposes .web would seem at
least foolish.

You always say that you want competition. Why do you not want a competing
bid for the running of the registry? Scared that IOD might lose? Scared that
IOD doesn't have a working business plan unless it is granted a monopoly?
Doesn't sound competitive to me.

Yours, John Broomfield.