Re: [wg-c] Non/for profit

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 11:39:15AM -0500, Harold Feld wrote:
[...]
> (a) diversity is a key element to maintaining robust and healthy
> systems.

An extremely general statement.  There is a huge diversity of 
non-profit organizations...

> (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.

Administrative processes, complaint procedures, etc are all 
required whether registries are profit or non profit.

>     (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.

Actually, this an oversimplification so gross that it justifiably can
be called "inaccurate".  A great deal of the core infrastructure of
the Internet would not be here if it were not for academic,
government, and volunteer effort. 

> It is also contrary to the philosophy expressed in
> the White Paper.

The White Paper expressed some general philosphy, true.  But
ultimately, the White Paper explicitly left decisions as to business
models to the "new corporation":

  Response [to the question of competitive registries]: 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.  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.  Further, in response to the comments received,
  the U.S.  government believes that new corporation should establish
  *******************************************************************
  and implement appropriate criteria for gTLD registries. 
  ******************************************************
  Accordingly, the proposed criteria are not part of this policy
  statement. 

> (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.

As the above quote clearly demonstrates, business models are very 
much part of ICANN's mandate.

> (d) There is no evidence at this time for the superiority of any model,
> and
> no dire consequences of experimentation.

The definition of "dire" is intrinsically subjective.  However, as 
has been mentioned many times, there are indeed serious negative 
consequences to a failed experiment -- tens, maybe hundreds of 
thousands of registrants might find themselves suddenly cut off from 
the net if a registry fails.  This is an extreme case, but there 
*are* possible negative consequences.

Of course, the extreme libertarian position is "so what".  As I 
said, the definition of "dire" is subjective...

> The testbed registries
> therefore presents
> an ideal opportunity to collect hard data.

Most people I know believe that the term "testbed" is misleading. 
Any test of business models will involve really selling real
registrations There will be no way to back out real registrations,
once they are made. 

[...]

> >         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.

This particular bizarre twist of reasoning has gained a great deal of
prominence lately.

Yes, non-profits have some degree of incentive to "lock in" their
customers.  But the incentive is vastly less.  Both human beings and
orangutans have bodily hair....but humans look rather different.

The acid test is, if non and for profits are really the same, then 
why do you care?  If "non" and "for" both have equal potential to 
exploit their customers, then it shouldn't make any difference to 
you or anyone else if the poor fools who want non profits get their 
way.

But of course, it is not the case that "for" and "non" are the same.  
They are different.  That's why we are having this debate.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain