Re: [wg-c] registry contracts

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

To tell the truth Kent I arrived at the question by roundabout means, and
not with the best of intentions either.

In a prior couple of pieces I've list-noodled if consolidation is likely
and a couple of other not so subtle fun-with-fratracide topics for the
operators seeking a place in the sun. My reasoning, however feeble, had
a hypothetical mid-life starting point for a large operator set, and
explored how, if possible, to arrive at some other equilibrium condition.

Everyone knows that consolidation can't happen, or that it can be kept at
bay by simple rules, but I'm sort of attached to the broken pail in my 
bit of the sandbox, so I'll let the B & A parades pass me by. 

Baffled by the (as I see it) mysticism of Milton's detour into pricing and
the indistinguishability of accumulation and speculation based models, the
first followed by most of WG-C's non-lurkers who apparently were not so
baffled as I, the second by fewer. I decided to think about something else.

I started thinking about the how not to get to the hypothetical mid-life
starting point for a large operator set, but about intra-cohort fratracide
and how avoid even the momentary idyle of plurality, economic democracy,
and a cottage-industry friendly free market economy.

Both accumulative and speculative models require access to investment
capital. How can NewRegOpCo_A reduce the access to capial available to
NewRegOpCo_B? How, in the spirit of "if they build it, we will come and
bury them", do we prove to Ambler, Fennelo, Walsh, Semich and Meyer that
they don't have a lock on the market, by the sincerest of proofs, forcing
them to cash-out?

One way is to disincentive "equitable" distributions of investment capital,
and marks are, from the operator perspective, easy marks, offering low cost
capitalizations to all operators. Now it is a given that NSI, having ramped
up the accumulation curve on old name-lease rates, both reckons that it can
operate on vastly lower new name-lease rates, but make the definition of
"equitable" distributions of investment capital via Caroline's markholders
start at the new name-lease rate.

So, if Caroline writes mark-script, how to keep her from handing any to
Ambler, Fennelo, Walsh, Semich and Meyer, or at least gives us more than
any of them relativly? It is chump change, but can we keep all of it?

What I really think is that there is are several classes of mechanisms
for the creative fratracide to effect capitalization dominance (without
ever challenging NSI's natch) by progressive relative increments. The
attractiveness of programatic fratracide is increassed under speculative
capitalization.

> What we are discussing here is just another form of lock-in, where TM
> owners are forced, through anti-dilution statutes among other things,
> to register many more names than they need.  That is, there is a
> structural character of the market that forces TM owners to plunk 
> down their cash every time a new gTLD comes on line.

Agreed, but I think the term "lock-out" has more elan. Let NewRegOpCo_A
make TM_holder_Z a nice offer, like their money back (and title vacated)
as soon as TM_holder_Z enters into a agreement with NewRegOpCo_B, C, D,
with the understanding that surrendered title means that the script kiddies
can have possession of the abandoned mark for free.

[There is an irony here in that the TM interests actually wanted to force
 the property framework on the DNS. Up until now I hadn't realized just
 how generous they intended to be, to everyone.]

Appologies to everyone named, and to those not equitably valorized.

> It is simple enough to write registry contracts with price controls
> in them, which would prevent the obvious price gouging you mention. 

Having zero pride, I'll pay Tony, Mikki, Milt and Roeland to prove the
existence of price controls proves Stalin lives, etc.

Having only a very nominal concern over doing time in the US, and much
more concern over being a consolidatee, I'll NDA the TM holders, call it
a service, and so on.
 
I don't think the gravity of all this has sunk into the happy capitalist
campers, and I'm sure I've the letters "m" "e" "a" "t" on my own flanks
in someone's eyes.

Cheers,
Eric