Re: [wg-c] registry contracts

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote 11/12/99 03:03PM 

>Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>
>> I recoil in horror at the thought of making ICANN or one of its satellites into an
>> explicit tariff-receiving and rate-setting or -approving agency.
>
>So do I. So do many people, including, I think, many of ICANN's Board.
>

I hope that's true of the Board.  Sometimes I wonder about at least some
of the members of this WG.

>I think Kevin J. Connolly is on the right track below. Although I have important
>disagreements,  . . . {snip}

>
>> 3.  Zones held by non-profit registries should not be re-bid,
>
>[snip]I don't agree with the idea of applying different standards to profit and
>non-profit with respect to delegations. In both cases ICANN is offering to advertise a
>zone file in its root; i.e., it is offering them both the same thing. If there is a
>fee, both should pay it; if there is a periodic redelegation, both should have the same
>period. By applying this principle, one avoids the problems K.C. astutely recognized in
>#4 and #7 below.

If we do not recognize a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit, then, over
time, there will be a tendency for the "good" TLDs to be captured by for-profit registries.
I think it would be bad for the future of the Internet were all of the "good" TLDs to fall
onto one side (or the other) of the for/non//profit divide.

>
>I understand that it is attractive, from a social policy point of view, to "encourage"
>non-profits and to "tax," or extract some of the value from, for-profits. However, I do
>not wish to encourage the model of ICANN as a taxing authority with a
>wealth-redistribution charge.

It's not a matter of taxation or wealth-distribution.  It's a matter of responsibly allocating
a fixed economic resource, i.e., slots in the authoritative root zone.

> If one believes that that should be done, that's for
>governments to do. Nor do I think ICANN should be in the business of determining what
>kinds of organizations are worthy of encouragement. 

If we are not to sit back and allow all of the TLDs fall into the control of profit-
maximizers, then ICANN needs to make some choices.  I have always thought
that it was for this reason that the DNSO was called into existence.

>I advocate a minimalist role for
>ICANN. I think that view commands a consensus among the SOs, and especially among
>IETF-ers who think seriously about the issue.
>
>However, K.C. raises the valid question, what does ICANN do if confronted with
>conflicting applications for the same name by registries operating along different
>models?
>
>I think that paying attention to precedent (FCFS) has both normative and practical
>value. Auctions are another method. KJC's proposal of a public benefit calculus is
>worth considering, too.
>
>But the real answer is that this is, fortunately, a problem we do not need to solve
>right now. Remember, we are just dealing with a testbed of 6-10 registries.

We are also setting precedents for the near- and mid-term future of the DNS.
It will become *harder,* not easier, to make these decisions as time goes on.

> In that
>initial phase ICANN can choose among applications based upon the criteria of what makes
>for a better experiment. It can also base its choices upon the principle of avoiding
>avoidable short-term problems.

It can also view the "testbed" as a dry run of its allocation policies.  (I enclose
"testbed" in inverted commas because I do not think of 6-10 registries as a small
enough rollout to constitute a true testbed.  Three registries (e.g., .nom, .per and
.mus) would be a true testbed; 6-10 feels more like a limited-scale deployment,
likely to have real economic significance.

>
>Long term, of course, it will have to deal with that issue more systematically. In
>dealing with it, we need to keep in mind that we are *not* dealing with a scarce name
>space. Individual strings are exclusive, of course, but the name space is not
>particularly constraining.
>
Kevin J. Connolly
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce 
Aronsohn & Berman LLP
This note is not legal advice.  If it were, it would come with an invoice.
As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows.   
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************