Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

There are some very good observations here, so let me amplify them

Rod Dixon wrote:

> I think if the WG-C arrives at a consensus that the new
> TLDs support both profit (and chartered) and not-for-profit registries, then
> there is no obvious reason not to extend that position to the "testbed" or
> initial rollout period.

Yes, the regulatory and so-called "lock-in" problems are not significantly
different. In either case, prices are constrained primarily by competition, or
by regulation.

> In my mind, we either support the two business
> models or we don't.

We have to support both. No consensus is possible if we don't.

I don't understand why those who believe that the non-profit model is superior
try to prevent the very existence of any alternative. All we need to do is give
end users a choice of models. The 6-10 consensus allows us to create 3 or 4
non-profit, registrar-owned models as well as several others. If that model is
really the one that delivers the best service and the best protection to
consumers, then consumers will select it, will they not?

> Nonetheless, we are tasked with the job of making the best
> initial decisions/recommendations as the rules of consensus permit.
> Consequently, I think the initial rollout (6- 10 new TLDs) should look as
> much like the subsequent rollout (however many more TLDs are established) as
> possible.

Exactly. This is the most sensible statement of how we should proceed that I
have seen on this list in some time.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/