Re: Exclusivity

[Paul Ezra Kautz <pek@iu.big-island.va.us>]

Leo Smith wrote:
>Would you support the concept of exclusive licensing rights to a gTLD name
>going to the qualified registry offering the highest bid, IF, once the
>exclusive license was awarded, the winning registry would be required,
>under the terms of their exclusive license, to sublicense ALL OTHER CORE
>MEMBERS. The winning registry would make money two ways: 
>1. direct marketing of its gTLD to end users, receiving full "retail"
>payment from the end user, and
>2. indirect marketing of its gTLD to other CORE members, receiving a
>"wholesale" portion of the retail payment collected by sublicensed CORE
>members when they "sell" the gTLD services through their registries under
>the sublicensing agreement.

No.

I don't support sharing for the benefit of the registrars. I support
sharing for the benefit of the users.

This system still links each TLD to one business. As Jude Wanniski,
former editor of the WSJ, said, "in a thriving capitalist system, there
is more failure than success." The root namespace should be more
stable than thriving capitalism can create; while the leaves are
distributed and transient, the root is the starting point we must
all share.

Oddly enough, Fleming sent me a similar proposal a few weeks ago,
except that instead of requiring sublicensing, he forecasted that
the registrars would be economically impelled to "share." This
is obviously an afterthought, theorizing a reason when there is
one lacking. It's just like a friend of mine, a self-described
anarchist, afterdicting that the Southern (US) plantation owners
would have ended slavery by their own volition with the onward
march of technology. It's a nice theory, but I don't buy it.

Your proposal requiring sublicensing does circumvent the monopolistic
nature of business, but doesn't handle the Darwinistic nature of
capitalism.

Paul Kautz