RE: [wg-c] Possible solution to lock in? For Profit registries.

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 13:26 20-11-1999 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Bob, can we avoid the use of a public utility like commission or role for
>ICANN? I'm wondering how to best approach this, as you are.

Dear Marilyn:

I recognize that it's a last resort, but such an expedient or something 
which has the same effect should be included if for-profit registries are 
to be considered.  Prices, profits and salaries for the staff must be kept 
within reason.  BobC

At 15:45 20-11-1999 -0800, Rod Dixon wrote:
 > In my mind, we either support the two business models or we don't.

Dear Rod:  OTOH, there's something to say for testing one variable at a time.

At 22:36 20-11-1999 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
 >Bob: If regulation is necessary, it will be necessary for non-profits as well
 >as for-profits.

Dear Milt:  Your have posed a valid point.  BobC

At 22:46 20-11-1999 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>I don't understand why those who believe that the non-profit model is superior
>try to prevent the very existence of any alternative.

Dear Milt:  Again, the old rule of testing one variable at a time.  I am 
not dead set against for-profit registries.  I think it is premature to 
launch them before other areas of concern are effective neutralized.  BobC

At 04:33 21-11-1999 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
 >But many people find it emotionally difficult to give in to
 >extortion, however small the scale -- for large TM holders, the
 >practical reality is that every new gTLD is an automatic, required
 >expense, a tax they must pay for no benefit.

Dear Kent:  But with a reasonable method of effective preemptive blocking 
of famous trademarks, that burden is decreased.  BobC, who thinks he's 
found a way to stay within the two posting limit;-}





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One test is worth three expert opinions!"

"It's sorta like the 'coon, he ain't much good after you've skinned him 
once or twice."
Ulric B. Bray