Re: [wg-c] registry contracts

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 21-Nov-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> Proof by appeal to authority?
> 
> They know quite a bit about economics.  That does not mean they know 
> a lot about the Internet.  Nor does it mean that they are unbiased.  

So we have someone who knows about the Internet, but not about economics,
saying one thing, and we have a panel of experts who KNOW economics (and
from the report appeared to have expert consultants who know the Internet).

Have you read the report details, Kent?  You really should, it isn't as
uninformed as you think.  Remember, the FTC is uniquely involved in issues
of commerce and antitrust.   They don't issue reports like that lightly,
and indeed they do not have any particular axe to grind one way or the
other.
 
> Hal Varian, dean of the school of economics at Cal Berkely, has
> studied this problem as well, and to him the obvious approach is
> something like the Nominet model.

One person who likes that approach and thinks it is the best model doesn't
mean that you exclude all other models, Kent.
 
> In particular, the FTC economists express a distressing lack of 
> understanding on the issue of the potential extent of the switching 
> costs involved.  That doesn't take a degree in economics to 
> notice...just familiarity with the Internet

I think you overstate your case, Kent. And so far I haven't seen a SINGLE
thing you have said that is based on reality.  The fact is that ICANN is
expected to include provisions in their contracts that will limit the
ability of registries to do exactly what you mention as the harm of
for-profit registries, and I only have to assume that you use it to spread
Fear amongst those who do not truly understand or have the time to spend
to look at all the ins and outs.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934