Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

James,

At 11:28 PM 4/19/00 -0400, James Love wrote:
>1.  Is the Working Group C approach that the registries will propose
>both the string and the charter, rather than have ICANN?

James, there is a difference between proposing and deciding.  (Given your 
recent involvement in this activity, you might not be aware that I'm not a 
fan of NSI.  However they do not deserve to be given FEWER rights than any 
other participant.)  What is wrong with their making a suggestion?


>2.  I assume that NSI wants to run the new registry in order to prevent

There is a difference between providing operations services and 'managing' 
the registry.  What is wrong with NSI's making an offer to sub-contract for 
operations.  (A different question is whether they would be a good choice, 
but that involves those making the choice, not those making the offer.)


>another rival from emerging.  I assume that NSI's suggestion the
>registry be owned by the other registrars is also consistent with making
>it hard for another rival to emerge.  I don't think I am going out on a

Given that a registry owned by registrars does not currently exist, what is 
the logic you used to conclude that this new registry, of which registrar 
NSI would be only one member among many, would not create competition for 
registry NSI?


>limb here.  With its current control of the gTLD space, why wouldn't one
>expect NSI to try to protect its monopoly?  That's what monopolies
>usually do.

And NSI has done that frequently and successfully.  However that does not 
mean that every utterance from them is nefarious or counter-productive.

Among the many possible explanations for their proposal is one that views 
it as being in there interest for competition at the registry level to be 
created, now that NSI has control of its own registry locked in for a 
number of years.  After all, enough ICANN failure could lead to 
de-stabilizing NSI's own position.


>3.  Was NSI allowed to vote in the Names Council votes on the new
>registries?  (I haven't seen the tallys).  What do the ICANN bylaws
>provide in terms of conflicts of interest for the Names Council?  Is

A simplistic view of controlling for conflict of interest attempts to have 
only completely untainted voters.

A realistic view of controlling for conflict of interest acknowledges that 
most voters are tainted, and then tries to balance representations so that 
the different taintings negate each other.

As a lousy TV show once noted, idealism is fine, but try spreading it on 
crackers.  If anyone is serious about getting work done here, they need to 
use models of the real world, not the ideal one.

d/

p.s.  The other point to consider is that it is always trivial to attack 
the proposer, and much, much more difficult to analyze the proposition.

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA