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

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

i believe if you check the time of the last posting mr crispin made you will
find that it was at 1:27 am thursday morning. according to my e-mail logs
you posting  followed at 1:35 am

ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Milton Mueller


> 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
> >
>
>