[wg-c] Non/for profit

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

This is my first post to this list.  Please forgive me if I cover
some old ground.

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>         The list has been uncharacteristically quiet over the last
couple of days,

Thanksgiving is coming, after all, and many of us have holiday
plans/preparations.


>
> which is refreshing, but less than ideal from the perspective of
getting
> our work done.  The proposition has been stated and defended on the
list
> that the establishment of a mixed system of for-profit and nonprofit
> registries would not be problematic.  There has been little
opposition.  Do
> we, in fact, have rough consensus on this point?  All of you who
believe
> that the inclusion of for-profit registries would be unacceptable --
please
> stand up and be counted.  (Certainly that view has been expressed on
the
> list in the past.)  Write to the list explaining your position.  I'm
> hopeful that we can bring this debate to resolution.
>

I favor a mix of for-profit and not-for-profit.  In fact, I favor as
little
interference in the market as possible, since:

(a) diversity is a key element to maintaining robust and healthy
systems.

(b) mandating business models, such as for-profit v. not-for-profit
requires,
administrative
process, complaint procedures, etc. all of which increase cost to the
system,
increase the level of complication unnecessarily, make such systems
top-heavy
and less responsive to real-world conditions.
    (i) such top-heavy regulatory models are also contrary to the
bottoms-up
market-driven approach hithertofore traditional on the Internet and
credited
with its success.  It is also contrary to the philosophy expressed in
the White Paper.

(c) such concerns go beyond the narrow technical coordination that is
the scope
of ICANN's jurisdiction -- a limitation first posited in the Commerce
Departments
Green and White Papers and consistently repeated by ICANN Board members.

(d) There is no evidence at this time for the superiority of any model,
and
no dire consequences of experimentation.  The testbed registries
therefore presents
an ideal opportunity to collect hard data.  Such an endevour is, in
fact, consistent
with
the entire prupose of running an initial trial or "testbed" period
before including
additional TLDs.
  (i) accordingly, it may be appropriate to mandate a mix of models,
i.e., mandate that of the 6-10 new TLDs, 40% be for-profit, 40% be
not-for-profit, and the remaining be open to any use.


>
>         One point in particular to focus on:  We didn't much address
the question
> of lock-in in our most recent discussion.  Do the people opposing the
> inclusion of for-profit registries have concerns *other* than lock-in,
or
> is lock-in basically the issue here?
>
>

How is lock-in effected by for-profit v. not-for-profit?  Is the idea is
that
for-profit registries have incentive to create lock-in problems (to
maximize profits)
while non-profits don't?  While I agree for-profits have lock-in
incentive,
so do non-profits.  If lock-in costs are considered unacceptable (a view

I would dispute), this is solved easily enough by open access
requirements.

Harold