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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> 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.  

I don't see it the same way Karl. They do not pick and choose
participants, they review prospective players in accordance with well
established technical and operational requirements. To my knowledge, no
one has been turned away. In the same way we had to walk a very shaky
plank with our implementation is it related to the DOC/NSI/ICANN contract
bundle, so does ICANN in ensuring the sound technical and operational
execution of the current root.

> ICANN has already imposed many arbitrary requirements, such as
> dictating contractual terms that must be imposed on registrants, such as
> business models, etc.

I don't disagree with your comments about the contractual terms - keep in
mind that they were, too a reasonable degree, subject to a great deal of
criticism and revision prior to implementation. As far as ICANN dictating
business models, I don't agree at all. Just take a look at the vibrant
dissonance between the models employed by the existing set of registrars.

> 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".
> 

This is a slippery slope. The next logical extension of your arguement is
that no one with a stake in the existing namespace can join in the
reindeer games. Keep in mind that there is a huge difference in being a
registrant, registrar and registry under the current system. I can buy the
arguement if it is limited to NSI (different topic, but gTLD registries
should be limited in the number of registries they can operate...about
three sounds good), but even then, this still puts ICANN in the position
of having to create a blacklist of firms that they refuse to do business
with. Not good policy given the current legislative landscape in the US.

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

"Six to Ten" followed by a period of evaluation doesn't necessarily imply
"stop at six to ten".

> 
> 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.
> 

There are lots of seats at the ICANN table, and more will be added as time
goes by. Precluding the existing invitees from the feast does nothing to
further the diversity you speak of.


> 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.

Such is the burden of any new business. ICANN can't change this.

-RWR



--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Wm. Rader                     http://www.domaindirect.com
Director, Assigned Names Division       http://www.opensrs.org    
TUCOWS.com Inc.                     http://www.domainwatch.com
ross@tucows.com                    http://www.domainsurfer.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
t. (416) 531-2697 x 335                      f. (416) 531-5584
----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"-------------------