Re: [wg-c] The limits of theoretical debate: time for experiments

[katie@imt.net]

11/11/99 th 4:47 pm mdt

Hear, Hear!

or as we say elsewhere:  WORD.

Kittyhawk was just a test, but it did answer some important questions,
while it raised many more, still being answered.

katie.

*******************
Kathryn Vestal, Esq.
P.O.Box 413
Billings, MT 59103
(406) 248 4331


At 05:33 PM 11/11/99 -0500, Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
>In Los Angeles, Paul Mockapetris "mocked" the new TLD debate by observing
that if
>this were a physics department we would have only theoretical physicists
-- no
>experiments or empiricists would be allowed. R Connelly made a similar
point long
>ago: "One test is worth three expert opinions!"
>
>The point being, we have long ago reached the limit of what can be
achieved through
>theoretical debate. One third to one half of the wg believes there should
be an open
>and competitive marketplace for new TLDs, a marketplace in which a variety
of models
>can be tried out and consumers will dictate their success. Another
third-to-half
>believe that ICANN must specify the model (one that just happens to
correspond to
>the one they selected when participating in the gTLD-MoU).
>
>We are not going to change each others' minds on this point. I suggest
that we
>accept that fact and try to find ways of moving forward. I would urge Kent
and
>others to disabuse themselves of the idea that clever debating tactics are
somehow
>going to snooker the people who advocate models different from theirs into
accepting
>the POC/Core model exclusively and in perpetuity. We all know what is at
stake and
>what is happening. The initial testbed will set the tone for the future.
The people
>who oppose for-profit registries now will oppose them in the future. No
one is
>fooled. No amount of noise generated on this list is going to evade or
obscure the
>fact that we don't agree on this.
>
>We are now at the point where experiments are called for. I adopt an
ecumenical
>approach to these initial experiments. Some of the initial "testbed" TLDs
should be
>shared, some shouldn't. Some should be for-profit, some non-profit. Some
should be
>broadly generic TLDs, some narrowly defined chartered TLDs. If problems
with any of
>these models develop, then that can be noted and can guide future behavior.
>
>In other words, time to put your money where your mouth is. If you want to
debate
>about for-profit v. non-profit, or shared v. proprietary, let's debate
about real
>facts, real experiments under controlled conditions.
>
>The contractual arrangements that set up these tests can and will define
temporary
>and retractable licenses. The notion that permanent problems will be
created through
>these temporary, delimited licenses is a scare tactic. Not a single post
has been
>able to document any real problem with that. No, waving the bloody flag of
NSI
>doesn't count. My previous post completely discredited that argument. The
problems
>posed by giving NSI an open-ended, uncontested gTLD monopoly for 6 years
and letting
>it achieve a 75% market share are not in the slightest comparable to
problems that
>might be created by giving a TLD registry temporary rights to operate for
a 6 month
>evaluation period.
>
>(Parenthetically, there is a real circularity to the parade of horribles
associated
>with NSI. They start with the premise that for-profit registries are bad.
Then they
>argue that the NSI agreements are terrible because they allowed a for-profit
>registry to continue. In other words, for-profit registries are bad
because...they
>are bad.)
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> But there are several ways to achieve competition.  That is the
>> point of having competitive registrars.
>
>We have the opportunity to test that way of achieving competition and
comparing it
>to the way I propose. I am confident that my proposals can withstand that
test. Why
>aren't you?
>
>--MM
>
>
>
>
>