Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

I attempted to mail a more detailed response earlier, did it go through?

Keith Gymer wrote:

>  Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> asked
>
> > Do we, in fact, have rough consensus on this point?
>
> I would doubt it.  Silence is seldom genuinely a sign of  either consent or
> content in my experience.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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?
>
> Lock-in and price gouging are clearly issues, and for general purpose
> (g)TLDs you only have to look at the NSI experience.
>
> Personally, I feel that for-profit registries are likely to be set up and
> run principally for that reason and not for the wider benefit of all
> internet staekholders as a whole, consequently, I don't think they are
> desirable.
>
> Keith

Of course for-profit registries will be set up to maximize profits.
This is the theory of a market-based economy.

The question is whether sufficient competition exists to discipline the
market.  Where insufficient competition exists, the few existing providers
will gouge the customers for maximum profit.  Where competition exists,
consumers "vote with their pocketbooks," they pruchase goods/services
from companies that provde them at good prices.

Furthermore, because the market is diverse, consumers can better
optimize their choices in a competitive market.  Again, the profit incentive
is key.  Providers seek to differentiate themselves in various ways, such as
discount pricing, better service etc.

Finally, the market culls the inefficient providers.  They go out of business.

In the absence of profit motive, you are stuck relying on the good
intentions of the service providers.  History tells us that good intentions
are no substitute for profit motive when it comes to providing
consumers what they want and need.

Finally, the advantage of the market model is that it does not preclude
competitive non-profits, cooperatives, etc.  Whereas mandating exclusively
non-profits denies to consumers their choice.

This, of course, is yet one more good reason for not mandating
a particular business model.  Mandating things to consumers
"for their own good" is a particularly nasty brand of paternalism
to which I am morally opposed as a general rule, absent evidence of
market failure or other overriding principle (e.g., requiring drugs to prove
safety and efficacy prior to relase is paternalistic, but necessary because
the market is incapable of weaning out frauds quickly enough to stop
people from dying.)

Harold Feld