RE: [wg-c] registry contracts

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I hope Milton fogives my aggresive editing but I think that this point
should be highlighted and I wish that I had said it this way and it bears
repeating; there is no practicable distinction between a for-profit registry
and a non-profit registry. Similarly, from a technical perspective, there is
no practicable distinction between a gTLD and a ccTLD. They are ALL TLDs.

<side-bar>
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the only thing that matters is
the registry, its policies, and its jurisdiction. A ccTLD, operated from a
US-based registry, falls under US law regardless of RFC 1591, because the
REGISTRY must follow US dictates. Similarly, a French-based registry can not
implement the proposal I have outlined
<http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml> because it
requires the use of technologies unavailable to French citizens and
companies (encryption), regardless of which ccTLDs they may host (the
over-riding jurisdiction in this case is French, regardless of RFC 1591,
unless you LIKE arguing with gandarmes <grin>).
</side-bar>

Getting back to Milton's point, in the US the distinction between non-profit
and for-profit is entirely one of tax reporting and payment. Historically,
it is a mechanism designed to separate church and state. That early
non-profits were entirely benevolent by charter is coincidental with this,
as they were largely ecclesiastic. However, there is no law that states that
this link must be preserved. A registry, and certainly ICANN, are secular
organizations. One can not endow ecclesiastic characteristics to secular
activities simply by making the organization non-profit. Also, there are
certainly large ecclesiastic organizations that have amassed great wealth,
yet are entirely non-profit. There are also very large non-profit secular
entities that have ALSO amassed great wealth, albeit not as many of them. In
all cases, they have been likened to hive mentalities (no value judgment).

One must ask what the goal is. I have been hearing, for a very long time,
much FUD about the danger of monopolies, as a justification for forcing
non-profit activities, in some vague hope that such classification would
magically impart ecclesiastic behaviour on the resulting legal entity. My
problem is the part about the process box, which is labeled "A miracle
occurs here". Said miracle being the enlightened benevolence magically
assumed by those operating non-profit enterprises. I'm sorry, but I just
don't buy into that. I trust those who are doing something becasue I paid
them to do it, way before I trust those whom are doing me favors. I
understand the motivations of those I am paying, I don't understand the
motivations of those doing me the favors.

I would rather be more explicit about the intended goals. If we want to
impart some form of ecclesiastic behaviour on the registry them let's
explicitly put them in the proposed policies for the registry. Forcing
registries to be non-profit will not accomplish what an explicit rule-set
will do.

> Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 3:09 PM
>
> In short, I am attacking the relevance of the whole distinction.
> It is based on a naive confusion between the legal category
> of "non-profit" and the notion of "working selflessly for the
> public interest." There is no reliable correlation between
> these two categories. Indeed, the belief that you solve the
> registry problem by licensing only non-profits is just a way
> of verbally defining the problem out of existence. Look at
> the US Olympic Committee, the United Way, the
> Educational Testing Service, the World Bank, and other
> fabulously wealthy non-profits.
>
> Either we regulate prices or we don't. There is no basis for
> distinguishing between profits and non-profits in making that
> decision.
>
> 2. "Ceiling price" for what? Services and functions can be
> bundled and unbundled in
> various ways.
>
> Who needs ceiling prices? Here's a salient point: NSI's
> registry prices are regulated for the forseeable future.
> Country codes are available to users. No one will be
> forced to register their name in a new TLD. Given the
> fact that new registries must compete long-term with a
> registry that
> a) controls 75% of the market
> b) commands practically 100% of the mindshare in north america
> c) has rates set at a very low $6/year, and
> d) is open to any and every accredited registrar in the world,
>
> Why should ICANN care what prices a new registry charges? If
> its prices and service
> are not competitive with NSI and 240 country codes, it won't succeed.