[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Public Resource vs Private Ownership
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:29:09 +0000 (GMT)
- From: Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>
- Subject: Re: Public Resource vs Private Ownership
On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > Furthermore, regulation of for profit companies is a tricky thing
> > > legally -- it almost certainly would require some special legal
> > > antitrust status for IANA. It is much simpler to just uniformly
> > > require that registries be run as non-profits. This special legal
> > > status would put IANA under the blanket of the USG. (Standard "I am
> > > not a lawyer" disclaimer.)
> >
> > There is no suggestion that IANA should be a for-profit company.
>
> I wasn't talking about regulating IANA -- I was talking about
> regulating for-profit registries.
There is some odd logic at work here. Governments regulate. IANA
is not part of the government. Neither is the POC.
> > IANA should be a neutral standards body with the least possible
> > involvement in any decisions having any commercial impact.
> >
> > I would insulate IANA from the registries by another non-profit
> > which would have responsibility for deciding which gTLDs go into
> > the root zone and who manages those gTLDs. We could call this
> > body, uhm, let's say the Policy Oversight Committee.
>
> We would then put the POC under the blanket of the USG, because it
> would probably need special anti-trust status if it were to regulate
> for-profit registries. I don't think the international community
> would be fooled by this shell game -- it's still putting control of
> gTLDs under a USG blanket.
This is not a shell game. One of the clear assumptions underlying
the green paper is that the body responsible for the root does not
need any special anti-trust status so long as it is run in an open,
impartial manner. In other words, the US government disagrees with
you.
In the Green Paper's scheme, for-profit registries are one level
down from their new IANA. Presumably the government's lawyers figure
that this is OK. From speaking with a variety of knowledgeable
people, it appears to me that it is OK.
You have to get it clear in your head what IANA controls and what it
doesn't control. IANA controls the root. It doesn't "regulate" the
registries.
> > The registries would be at a third level. They could be run for
> > profit or as cooperative non-profits like CORE. As I have said,
> > I prefer the CORE model but think that some controlled
> > experimentation along other lines should be permitted.
>
> And how do you enforce those controls without running foul of anti-trust?
You contract with the registries to put gTLDs into your root servers
for a limited period of time under certain very clear conditions. If
they don't meet your conditions you remove them from your root servers.
You have not removed them from the Internet. You remove them only from
your root servers. If others choose voluntarily to regard those root
name servers as primary, that has nothing to do with your contract with the
gTLD registries.
There is no contract possible with the operators of the world's name
servers who point voluntarily at the 13 root name servers. There are
no legal rights involved here, there are no contracts explicit or
implicit between the tens of thousands of name server operators and
IANA/the POC/etc.
This isn't a complete description of an arms-length relationship between
the registries and IANA/the POC/whatever. But it should be sufficient
to indicate how you would go about building one.
> > > If it is quickly made clear that a running registry is not a money
> > > machine the incentive to sue will dissipate. But if registries are
> > > high-profit entities that incentive will remain for a much longer
> > > time, perhaps indefinitely, IANA will need a bigger staff of lawyers,
> > > and lobbyists to maintain its special status in congress, etc etc.
> > > Either model works. But one is vastly superior as a matter of public
> > > policy.
> >
> > This argument just isn't compelling. Your structure is
> >
> > IANA non-profit
> > POC non-profit
> > CORE non-profit
> > registrar profit
>
> Actually my personal preferred structure is:
>
> IANA non-profit
> various registries (including CORE/POC) non-profit
POC is a registry now, is it?? Quite a few people will be surprised ...
> registrar profit
>
> > and you say that this protects IANA.
>
> It does.
>
> > I would also allow
> > IANA non-profit
> > POC non-profit
> > registry profit
> >
> > In both cases at a certain level substantial profits appear. Why does
> > one attract lawsuits but not the other?
>
> It's really fairly obvious. A registry is a monopoly. A registrar
> is not.
In Europe, the competition authorities are interested in large markets
where certain players have dominant roles. "Large" probably means at
least tens of millions of dollars/pounds/ECU/etc. "Dominant" means
something like 25%+. I assume that similar rules apply in the USA.
IANA has 100% control over the root: it is a monopoly. It nominally
has the right to delegate gTLDs worth hundreds of millions of dollars
(.COM, etc). Is it of interest to DG IV? Yes.
Nominet has 100% control of the UK's only national TLD, .UK. Most UK
entities register in .UK. Is Nominet a monopoly? Yes. Does it have
special anti-trust status? No. The UK anti-trust regulators have
looked at it, consider it impartial, well-run, etc, and have moved
on.
NSI currently has 100% of the gTLD market (.com/net/org). It is a
monopoly.
Let's say Bob Allisat runs .wtv and has 0.00001% of the gTLD market. Is
he operating a monopoly? Not in any conventional sense of the term.
The European Commission's competition division, DG IV, would not betray
a flicker of interest.
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council President
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65