Re: [wg-c] application documents requirements

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Milton,

the context is "generic" is defined by websters as 
  1 a : relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class : GENERAL
    b : being or having a nonproprietary name c : having no
        particularly distinctive quality or application
  2 : relating to or having the rank of a biological genus

we are discussing the addition of GENERIC TLDs and I don't understand the 
benifit of having additional non-shaired registrings running generic TLDs

could you provide a case analysis of why additional non-shaired gTLD would
benifit the internet community. I would like to understand how price
competition would work with non-shaired gTLDs.

If we are to specificly allow non-shaired generic TLDs the potential 
for greater utility to the internet community must be made so that
everyone understands the great potential for this model.

I just don't see the benifit of non-shaired generic TLDs, if you could
just enlighten me I would certanly appreciate it. 

-rick

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Josh, calling these registries "monopolies" prejudges the very point that is
> at issue.
> 
> You might want to review the brief argument in Position Paper B to catch up
> on the side of this debate you are unaware of.
> 
> Some parties in this debate believe that there can be effective competition
> across registries; this includes the economists at the Federal Trade
> Commission who have, I am sure, a much more scientific and highly developed
> sense of what is a monopoly than many on this list. Moreover, some of us
> have argued that allowing registrars open access to all registries may
> commoditize registries, enhancing competition on price alone but eliminating
> competition on the basis of differnetiated functionality.
> 
> A shared registry is one approach, non-shared or proprietary registries is
> another, non-commercial chartered registries yet another. There is really no
> reason why all registries must conform to one model. Those who believe that
> they have defined the one best model for all names for all time must meet a
> very, very high burden of proof.
> 
> The topic of what constitutes effective competition is constantly debated in
> regulatory economics. It is not a simple topic, and one trivializes the
> significance of this debate by suggesting that we have a simple, binary
> choice. If you'd like to bone up on the topic I'd be happy to suggest some
> readings in the area.
> 
> --
> m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Elliott" <jelliott@tucows.com>
> To: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>; "Rick H Wesson"
> <wessorh@ar.com>
> Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:54 AM
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements
> 
> 
> > I don't think it is realistic to think that ICANN will approve new
> > monopolies in the DNS.  While we haven't necessarily come to consensus on
> > this point, it does not makes sense to argue such an issue.  Do people
> > really think that if we come to consensus that there could be new
> > monopolies, ICANN and DOC would consider it?
> >
> > I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other
> > competitive models other than a registry/registrar model.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > > William X. Walsh
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:59 PM
> > > To: Rick H Wesson
> > > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements
> > >
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17-Mar-2000 Rick H Wesson wrote:
> > > >   o operational issues - what reports and are generated for
> registrars,
> > >
> > > This implies that all registries would be shared.  I know of no
> > > consensus on
> > > this point.
> > >
> > > - --
> > > William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> > > http://userfriendly.com/
> > > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> > > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> > > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
> > >
> > > iD8DBQE40cml8zLmV94Pz+IRAg3OAJ9KnNoarvJEI8/xYJHeWQEhuskKiwCgkf+6
> > > 5PUxPmsDzIJPvpBzNTzBlng=
> > > =bEcw
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>