Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> You want to see clauses in the contract that protect everyone from getting
> bad service, don't you. How about a clause like "as long as company X can
> give the best service for gTLD, they will run it". Bit drastic eh? Don't
you
> think it's better to somehow guarantee a certain length of operation
rather
> than none at all?

No.

Once again, unless you can show that NSI gets an automatic rebid, nobody
else can be put to that option. Since it seems certain that NSI is going to
get
a contractual extension to 2004, all new registries must be given the
same consideration.

> No matter how large the number of new gTLDs, there will be MANY cases
where
> there is no other choice. If you have gTLDs like "city" or "car"/"auto"
> "sport" "law" "finance" "bank" "museum" "hotel" "restaurant" "airline"...
or
> whatever, then an entity REALISTICALLY won't have a choice as to which
gTLD
> it goes under.

Sure they will. Let's see:

> Just as an exercise to the reader, decide how many choices each of the
> following have as to under which of those example TLDs above they could be
> registered under:
> New York City Council

nycc.com
nycc.web
nycc.city
nycc.gov
nyc.city
nyc.council
nycc.org

> Air France

france.air
france.airlines
franceair.fr
franceair.com
franceair.web
franceair.vacations
franceair.travel

> ...

> If you add 1000 gTLDs, an entity won't REALISTICALLY have one
> thousand more choices, it will only have maybe one or two more in addition
> to its current choice of com/net/org/ccTLD.

Absolutely and completely false.


More gTLDs serve to reduce the

> ANY gTLD will remain a monopoly locking in customers and not allowing them
> to have a REAL choice as to where to go (nike will NOT register under
> .airline or .law for example -unless they somehow think it's a good idea
to
> do so to protect their trademark, dunno-).

nike.shoes
nike.sport
nike.air (!)
nike.com
nike.web
nike.speed

> I don't think anyone disagrees with this. However, if you think that
*just*
> with that you have enough protection, there I disagree completely.

I never said that.

> > Apply this to all. To apply this to non-profit only would accomplish two
things.
> > First, it would set up an unfair trade situation of epic proportion.
Second, it
> > would make all registries set themselves up as non-profit, attempting to
find
> > legal loopholes (like large salaries, capital investment, etc) to remain
so.
> > Face the reality of the situation.
>
> I agree completely with you. In fact, I can't really see anyone just for
the
> hell of it creating a non-profit registry maintaining entity. I would
guess
> that all companies bidding for the job of running the backend database of
> any given TLD(s) would actually be FOR profit (like Emergent, or the NSI
> registry, or IOD -if they decide "ok, let's try and run a registry").
> Once you tender something, I can't see the reasoning in somehow granting
> god-status to an entity because it is non-profit.

I'm glad we agree on something.

> > Regardless, unless you can impose this on NSI, you cannot impose it on
> > new registries. Since it seems certain that NSI will have a contract
> > extension until 2004 in exchange for signing with ICANN, this whole
> > line of examination is moot.
>
> As usual, until we have clarification on NSI, we're arm flapping.
> (and strange things happen with pigs apparently)

Indeed.

Christopher