Re: [wg-c] application documents requirements

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Josh, calling these registries "monopolies" prejudges the very point that is
at issue.

You might want to review the brief argument in Position Paper B to catch up
on the side of this debate you are unaware of.

Some parties in this debate believe that there can be effective competition
across registries; this includes the economists at the Federal Trade
Commission who have, I am sure, a much more scientific and highly developed
sense of what is a monopoly than many on this list. Moreover, some of us
have argued that allowing registrars open access to all registries may
commoditize registries, enhancing competition on price alone but eliminating
competition on the basis of differnetiated functionality.

A shared registry is one approach, non-shared or proprietary registries is
another, non-commercial chartered registries yet another. There is really no
reason why all registries must conform to one model. Those who believe that
they have defined the one best model for all names for all time must meet a
very, very high burden of proof.

The topic of what constitutes effective competition is constantly debated in
regulatory economics. It is not a simple topic, and one trivializes the
significance of this debate by suggesting that we have a simple, binary
choice. If you'd like to bone up on the topic I'd be happy to suggest some
readings in the area.

--
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/



----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Elliott" <jelliott@tucows.com>
To: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>; "Rick H Wesson"
<wessorh@ar.com>
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements


> I don't think it is realistic to think that ICANN will approve new
> monopolies in the DNS.  While we haven't necessarily come to consensus on
> this point, it does not makes sense to argue such an issue.  Do people
> really think that if we come to consensus that there could be new
> monopolies, ICANN and DOC would consider it?
>
> I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other
> competitive models other than a registry/registrar model.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > William X. Walsh
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:59 PM
> > To: Rick H Wesson
> > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > On 17-Mar-2000 Rick H Wesson wrote:
> > >   o operational issues - what reports and are generated for
registrars,
> >
> > This implies that all registries would be shared.  I know of no
> > consensus on
> > this point.
> >
> > - --
> > William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> > http://userfriendly.com/
> > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
> >
> > iD8DBQE40cml8zLmV94Pz+IRAg3OAJ9KnNoarvJEI8/xYJHeWQEhuskKiwCgkf+6
> > 5PUxPmsDzIJPvpBzNTzBlng=
> > =bEcw
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>