Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > But as long as there are going to be only a few new TLDs, then it behooves
> > us to encourage creative and imaginative newcomers.

> I'm not sure that I follow your logic re: diversity. True diversity
> implies a completely open-call that encourages all interested parties to
> participate. Diversity does not mean limiting the process to those that
> have not yet stepped up to the plate.
> 
> Further, IANAL, but this limitation brings to mind several scenarios that
> may put ICANN on very shaky legal ground. 
> 
> I am very fearful of any recommendations that do not allow for full and
> proper market competition.
> 
> ObDisclosure: We are a registrar...

Thanks for the disclosure.

As for "very shaky legal ground", as I see it, ICANN has already walked
out to the end of the plank of "monopoly" in that it is acting as an
arbiter of who may and who may not participate in de facto dominant root
system.  ICANN has already imposed many arbitrary requirements, such as
dictating contractual terms that must be imposed on registrants, such as
business models, etc.

And here is a requirement, diversity of control over TLD rights, that
actually enhances competition over an ICANN created scarcity.  To my mind
mandated diversity of control is more likely to withstand antitrust
complaints than just about anything else that has passed under ICANN's
"authority".

If there were no artificial scarcity of TLDs then I'd share your concerns.  

But there is, in fact, such a scarcity and there are only going to be so
many seats at the table for those new assets.  And those seats ought to be
warmed by those who aren't already at the DNS feast.

Indeed, as it happens, those already at the table are getting free
benefits of NSI's royal supper while the newcomers won't be able to eat
until they cook their own meals from ingredients they must bring by
themselves and at their own expense.

		--karl--