Re: [wg-c] lock-in

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

If we look at it closely, the *vast majority* of defenders of the
idea of getting an eternal grant of ownership of a TLD that can be exploited
commercially are those that want a TLD (or more) granted to them for
eternity so that they can exploit it commercially... (No, I haven't yet
figured out William Walsh), so it is rather obvious that you are very far
from being an uninterested party arguing for what you think is the best
scenario for the development of the internet in general. In fact, you are
actively arguing for what would be a scenario that would very openly benefit
you personally.

Up to recently the two different scenarios had been characterized as
for-profit against non-profit. Unfortunately it is too far an
oversimplification of the scenario and leads to calls about comunism or
killing off free enterprise, or uncompetitivity etc... All these complaints
are very populistic and if left at that would obviously atract public favour
because the public generally won't want to get into the details of what the
two scenarios really are and just prefers these calls to FUD.

These two different scenarios are NOT about open-market against
closed-market. They are about uncontrolled monopoly against controlled
monopoly. Each gTLD is a monopoly. A gTLD is NOT a brand (and we are not yet
arguing about introduction of branded TLDs like ".ibm" or ".aol"), and it is
not an invention either that someone can claim they "invented" before anyone
else (otherwise it IS a brand and by definition ceases to be generic). As
such, granting ownership of a generic to any given entity for their sole
commercial benefit is unfair.

One way about it would be for the head organisation (which most players seem
to have recognized in ICANN) to run all registries directly, but this would
lead to an overbloated ICANN. A better solution is for ICANN to outsource
the running of registries. The only non-profit entity is ICANN (and it's
going to be there no matter what scenario). When an entity outsources
something, more so if it is an entity subject to public scrutiny, it will do
so for limited terms, periodically rebid, and have the bidding process open
to all those that wish to bid. To have it done any other way would lead to
calls of favoritism and fraud in the short term, corruption and cronyism in
the long term.

So what is it then?
-Granting of gTLDs on a permanent basis to private entities that just show
 up and therefore creating uncontrolled monopolies with no need, desire or
 incentive for improving service or price, and in general not having any
 competitors (hey, they OWN the gTLD!). (favoritism, fraud, corruption,
 cronyism).

-Having open and fair competitive bids for gTLDs *OPEN TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY*
 with fixed and limited terms, where for-profit registry running entities
 can bid to run gTLDs.

Yours, John Broomfield.