Re: [wg-c] The legal status of registries

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

Milton Mueller wrote:
> White Paper wrote:
> >      Response: Both sides of this argument have considerable merit. It is
> > possible that additional discussion and information will shed light on this
> > issue, and therefore, as discussed below, **the U.S. Government has
> > concluded that the issue should be left for further consideration and final
> > action by the new corporation**.
> 
> It is probably more productive to debate what ICANN *should* do, not what it
> *could* do. We have had additional discussion and information and we have
> shed additional light on the issue. It is pretty clear that the case for
> restricting all registries to non-profit status has been effectively
> demolished. Proponents of this position base their case entirely on the
> possibility of "lock-in," but cannot refute the following facts:
> 
> a) non-profits can exploit lock-in as much as for-profits. (note in this
> regard that the only independent study on this question performed by real
> economists--the FTC--concluded that there was no significant difference
> between the two.)
> 
> b) consumers who prefer a non-profit or who believe that they can only trust
> non-profits will be adequately protected simply by having the option to
> register with one. There is no need to exclude all for-profits.
> 
> c) the regulation of the price of the world's largest and most popular gTLD
> registry provides yet another safety outlet. Any registry will have to be
> competitive with NSI's, and NSI's price is fixed at a reasonable level.
> 
> d) for profit (and non-profit) registries that abuse their customers can and
> will be regulated by national authorities. All registries exist in a defined
> jurisdiction.
> 
> e) enforcing a non-profit restriction, as KJC's post revealed, will require
> detailed regulation and monitoring by ICANN of how "profits" are returned to
> various entities; in that regard the situation is not significantly different
> from the regulation and monitoring requirements that for-profits would impose.
> 
> I think we can lay this issue to rest.
> 
> Finally, for those who do believe in reading the entrails of the White Paper,
> the following statement provides about as clear a statement as one can in
> favor of market competition:
> 
> > The U.S. Government is of the view, however, that competitive systems
> > generally result in greater innovation, consumer choice, and satisfaction
> > in the long run. Moreover, the pressure of competition is likely to be the
> > most effective means of discouraging registries from acting monopolistically.
> 
> Note that it valorizes "competition," not "non-profit status," as the most
> effective means of discouraging registries from acting monopolistically.
> 
> --
> m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
> 
>