RE: [wg-c] non/for profit

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

I challenge this presumption. Just because a registry is for-profit, doesn't
imply any set of priorities on policies... any more than non-profit can
assume any sort of policy priorities. In both cases, it is strictly up to
the management. This is the core of the objections to the forced business
model. However, what Milton proposes is unworkable. One simply can not treat
the registry owners and employees with the total disdain that Milton's plan
requires. It is inhumane. In fact, I have failed to point out the general
inhumanity behind some of the non-profit proposals.

One simply does not give someone a job and then take it away a year later,
for no reason. As a business owner, I consider the employees and there
families. I don't take RIFs lightly. An honorable owner of a business, to
some extent, indemnifies their employees from the risks of the business.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Eric
> Brunner
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 5:34 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] non/for profit
>
>
>
> Caroline,
>
> Another issue with the for-profit model is which policy goal it places
> the paramount value upon.
>
> The policy goal of reducing the percentage of registrations
> in the existing
> "generic" TLD registries, independent of the number of
> registrars, which
> NSI ultimately holds as operator of the COM/ORG/NET, is
> subordinate to some
> other policy goal.
>
> The charter of WG-C could be figuring out how to get 50% of
> the traffic,
> using the identical operational model (single registry, one
> or more TLDs,
> and some number of registrars), then figuring out how to get
> a third and
> subsequent process models started with some initial
> capitalization-in-names
> via assignment.
>
> Rather than having already agreed to construct a monster with
> the intent
> of dismantling it as it dismantles NSI to then create
> plurality (a task
> made awkward if the monster to be
> constructed-then-deconstructed has some
> independent duty (RoI maximization) and freedom of agency
> (legal status)
> to execute that duty), we're dorking around with a handful of
> scabby wee
> rodents who swear they've got a breeding program that will do the same
> trick in less time, safer, and so on, but about which the details are
> unknowable.
>
> As an additional kink, we've got to keep them from scampering over the
> edge of American anti-trust cliffs.
>
> In an alternate universe, having already held the lottery and
> awarded the
> Red Cross and Red Crescent societies (why not?) the prime
> contractor role
> last Summer, and picked a couple registrars this Fall, we'd
> be dorking the
> prices and other fungible bits of the problem and selling the
> idea to the
> public that the RED/GREEN/BLUE gTLDs are way cheap, tres
> cool, effective,
> and sound policy -- in the off chance that our dailys would,
> if we worked
> hard enough, and got luck, actually exceed NSI's dailys.
>
> Not that I expect to convince anyone, but which interests are
> willing to
> subordinate, for years if necessary, self-interest to the
> goal of making
> NSI just another ho-hum in the registry racket?
>
> The hundred-flowers school claims their flowers not only
> grace the eye,
> but must come first.
>
> The school for speculators claims their roll of the dice possesses a
> mathematical beauty, and also must come first.
>
> Others argue the mystical unity of all things, and that complex ritual
> also must come first (No, I don't understand the inner
> weaving of Milt's
> magic carpet, and I can't find a corner of it that doesn't
> smell like a
> spiteful cat hasn't been there first).
>
> Of course, ICANN actually embarks on a course of action which tends to
> effectively displace NSI from its present position of being
> without any
> competition, we can expect that NSI will attempt to set our
> hair on fire.
>
> This piece of drama was billed as "The King Must Die", but
> the cast decided
> to play it as "The King and a musical-chairs-I", a comedy of
> revolutionary
> manners.
>
> Off hand I don't know why the trademark holders care one way
> or another,
> either about parity with NSI's daily numbers or the abstract
> question of
> which modality is preferable. I expect that you may prefer the fewest
> operator model to be selected, for the same reasons you may prefer the
> weaker operator model, your policy being applied via operator action.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>