Re: Public Resource vs Private Ownership

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@namesecure.com>]

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > And Jay, like many others feels otherwise. Given the inability to
> > reach any real consensus on this issue despite claims to the
> > contrary, isn't the reasonable compromise in this situation to allow for
> > both models? 
> 
> Not really -- for profit registries are fundamentally impractical:

In your opinion. And judging by NSI's success in this area, an erroneous
one. Would you also address the "impracticality" of other registries such
as .nu, .cc, .to, .tm all of which are operated on a for-profit basis?  
I imagine the companies behind this registries would have a vastly
differing opinion on the subject. 

Perhaps you would like to clarify your statement?

> It is quite clear that IANA's authority derives from community
> consensus,and nothing else -- IANA has absolutely no way to force all
> the nameservers in the world to point to the root zone it defines;
> anyone else at all can set up root servers with minimal expense and
> effort.  If other governments, for example, feel that IANA is playing
> favorites with the USG, then they will indeed start their own root
> servers.  

Which is why it is important to achieve a true consensus, something which
despite claims to the contrary, the gTLD-MOU supporters have utterly
failed in doing. If there was any sort of real consensus, there would have
been no impetus for the USG to get involved. 

> There is already talk of this -- we are already skating very
> close to a serious fracture of the DNS namespace. 

This is nothing new. 

> Given the monetary value of an exclusive franchise on part of the 
> DNS, there is absolutely no way that that IANA could give out 
> such exclusive franchises without serious legal exposure -- unless...
> ...the USG steps in and indemnifies IANA.  This would require special 
> laws regarding IANA.
> Such a move would rightly be seen by foreign governments as an attempt
> to take control of the DNS.

Not if they were involved in the process. This is an important
constituent in the long term success of any organization charged with such
a task whatever model is followed.  

> Contrast this with a model where all TLD registries are either 1) 
> delegated to a sovereign entity or 2) required to be run on a 
> cost-recover non-profit basis.  
> 
> In this later case the possibility of any kind of lawsuit is
> drastically reduced -- there is a uniform, consistent policy,
> and registries are not high profit monopolies. 

Competition in the marketplace is a significant factor in determining
price. At this time we are only beginning to see such competition as with
the ISO-3166 registries such as .nu which is charging $25 a year for
registration. I do not feel that you have the basis to substantiate such
claims.

While it would be correct to state that a company may have a monopoly on a
TLD, they would *not* have a monopoly in the marketplace, which is far 
more important in leveling such charges.  

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell				         (800) 299-1288 v
			   Systems Administrator	 (510) 377-1414 f
	                         NameSecure		     
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/