Re: Good Monopolies

["Leo Smith" <barter@ntplx.net>]

Thom Stark writes:
: As for exclusive license registrars, (I think all registrations need to
: go into a common database, for which I've been using the term 
: "registry",) I have no strong objection to that model as long as:
: 
:   a. other registrars have the right and *obligation* to accept 
:      registrations in the same TLD and
: 
:   b. if the primary registrar for a given TLD goes out of business,
:      the TLD becomes a shared one, with no sublicense fee due from
:      any registrar to any other
: 
: My thought here is that provision a. means that a registrant who wishes
: to register in a TLD can apply to any registrar and *cannot be refused
: service* on any grounds other than that the SLD requested has already
: been assigned.  This is a matter of maximizing customer convenience.
: 
: I include provision b. as a condition because I think the major reason
: (aside from sheer incompetence) that a registrar in an exclusive model
: might go out of business is that the TLD(s) it chooses are unpopular.
: Provision b. thus protects that registrar's existing customer base from
: being "orphaned" and incents all remaining registrars to continue to
: provide those registrants service, since, in exchange for the hassle of
: dealing with an unpopular TLD, they now get to keep ALL of the income
: from those customers, with the exception of any fee (for which read
: "tax") due to CORE, ISOC or like supervisory/delegatory body.
: 
: I hope the above is responsive.  You have my permission to repost it to
: the list, if you see fit.

To which Leo Smith replies:
Both of your provisions work. With automatic sublicensing of all exclusive
gTLDs to all CORE members, your objective in provision a) is met, and
there's no problem with your provision b). If a registry goes out of
business, and the gTLD of the failed registry becomes "public domain", the
remaining registries would still have the exclusive gTLDs that they
obtained in their "charter" licensing agreement.