Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Milton Mueller

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

This makes 3 posts by Kent today. Are we going to enforce this
rule, or not?

Christopher

----- Original Message -----
From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Milton Mueller


> On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 10:53:21PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:57:49 -0500
> > From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
> > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting
> >
> > Craig:
> > A nice contribution overall. I agree strongly with Werner Staub's
> > elaboration upon,
> > and strengthening of, the analysis of why new TLDs are needed.
> >
> > I remain unshakeably convinced that the profit-non-profit issue is a red
> > herring at
> > this stage. Let me explain once again what the reasons are. The
fallacies
> > in the
> > reasoning are particularly evident in Craig's comments below.
> >
> > Craig Simon wrote:
> >
> > > If and when new gTLDs are added, I believe it would be wiser to start
> > > with non-profit/cost-recovery gTLDs rather than proprietary gTLDs.
> > > The underlying presumption is that if either approach is later deemed
to be
> > > mistaken, it would be easier to parcel off a non-profit registry (say,
by
> > > auction) rather than to take the registry from a private owner. In
short,
> > the
> > > public resource blunder would be easier to fix than the proprietary
blunder.
> >
> > First, let me challenge the notion that adding exclusively administered
> > TLDs poses
> > some kind of enormous risk to the operation of the Internet, a risk so
> > threatening
> > that special measures must be taken to preserve options to "take back"
> > delegations.
>
> It's actually more that the *combination* of "for-profit" and "exclusively
> administered" is the problem.  As the example of .museum
> demonstrates, I am quite willing to contemplate fairly exclusive
> arrangements, if the exclusive arrangement is with an entity that is
> non-profit,
>
> > We have been adding ccTLDs, and associated registries, to the root for
more
> > than ten
> > years. The vast majority of them are administrered as proprietary
> > registries; i.e., a
> > single entity is both registry and registrar and the delegatee has
effective
> > ownership of the zone files.
>
> But only recently have any of them been really "for-profit"...  It
> is, as I said, the combintation of "for-profit" and "exclusive
> control" that is the problem.  Note that a combination of
> "for-profit" and "exclusive control" is very close to the definition
> of a monopoly...
>
> > > The last four years of experience with NSI provides incontrovertible
> > proof of
> > > how difficult it can be to get a powerful proprietary registry to
modify
> > its way
> > > of dealing with the Internet community. Consider the grief that has
occurred
> > > over questions of defining norms of conduct for interacting with
registrars,
> > > adhering to a community-supported DRP, maintaining whois
accessibility, etc.
> >
> > The problems with NSI have nothing at all to do with its for-profit
> > character.
>
> Now there's a sweeping generalization.
>
> > They
> > have everything to do with market dominance, i.e. the fact that it
controls
> > 75% of
> > the world's domain name registrations.
>
> And there's another...
>
> In fact, that dominance would matter far far less if it were a
> non-profit public benefit kind of company.  If registrations in .com
> were done at cost people would be far less concerned, and
> furthermore, NSI would be much less concerned about losing the
> contract.
>
> > If you want to erode that dominance
> > you need
> > to authorize additional commercial, for profit registries that can
compete
> > effectively with NSI.
>
> Let's see -- you argue on the one hand that we can't *start* with
> just non-profits, as Craig and many other have suggested, because the
> non-profits will get so much market share in the beginning that it
> will be unfair to later possible for-profit registries.  But on the
> other hand you argue that only for-profit registries can possible
> pull any market share away from NSI.
>
> Interesting.
>
> > Whether NSI was for-profit or not didn't make a bit of difference.
>
> Of course it did.  There is absolutely no doubt that NSI's actions
> have been heavily condition by the fact that it is a for-profit
> company.
>
> > Indeed,
> > does
> > anyone on this list besides myself has any experience with trying to
> > "modify the
> > behavior" or a powerful state-owned monopoly telephone company? These
entities
> > claimed a public service mandate but often made customers wait for 10
years
> > to get a
> > phone line. The only thing that made them jump was competition. NSI will
> > become less
> > powerful when the market for gTLDs becomes competitive. Period.
>
> But there are several ways to achieve competition.  That is the
> point of having competitive registrars.
>
> > Folks, the Berlin Wall fell almost exactly 10 years ago, and with it,
the
> > idea that
> > profit-motivated enterprise is an evil force to contained or eliminated.
>
> *Nobody* is making that claim.  Indeed, that is the whole motivation
> behind having competing registrars.  The criticism of the profit
> motive stems from cases when it takes priority over other social
> virtues.  We don't condone selling babies because it is a high-profit
> enterprise; we don't condone trafficking in human body parts; or
> murder for hire.  These are extreme examples, to make the point.
>
> But there is also the fact that effective competition depends on
> rules, rules of a much more mundane sort, having to do with exclusive
> control over resources.  Society as a whole is very cautious about
> granting exclusive franchises -- copyrights and patents, for
> example, give short term monopolies, and they are carefully
> rationalized in the US constitution as providing social benefits in
> spite of their exclusive character.
>
> > This is the
> > Internet economy, and the current level of Internet development is a
direct
> > product
> > of profit-motivated firms. It is no accident that NSI commercialized
domain
> > names
> > more successfully than any other registry.
>
> Actually, it is crystal clear that it was largely an accident.  NSI
> did absolutely nothing to market .com/.net/.org until relatively
> recently.  They just rode the wave created by the invention of the
> hypertext transfer protocol.
>
> > > Chris Ambler asks for the same (very cushy) deal that NSI got. I say
the
> > > Internet community should be spared a replay of this debacle.
> >
> > The only "debacle" was the delays imposed on introducing new competition
by
> > the Dept
> > of commerce and by the creation of ICANN
>
> Indeed.  If the MoU hadn't been derailed we would have had robust
> competition a year ago.
>
> > > I believe the choice provided by "the more feasibly fixed fiasco"
> > principle can
> > > expedite progress, given the paralyzing lack of consensus we have seen
on
> > the
> > > issue of which registry model to adopt.
> >
> > No, it can't. Any approach to the transition that has ICANN dictating
> > business models
> > is an absurd anachronism and is not acceptable to at least half of this
> > working
> > group.
>
> I don't think that is correct.
>
> > The most feasibly fixed fiasco scenario is this:
> > Create shared, non-profit registries in the testbed. Create proprietary,
> > for-profit
> > registreies in the testbed. Create shared, for-profit registries in the
> > testbed. Let
> > CONSUMERS decide which ones they choose.
> >
> > Am I the only one on this list who wants to give consumers the right to
> > make the
> > choice for themselves?
>
> No -- that's what registrars are for -- creative competition at the
> retail level.  Running a registry database is a boring back-office
> operation.  NSI makes money as a registrar, not because of its
> sophistication as a database company.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>