[ncdnhc-discuss] "...In this model policy enforcement is easy. "

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.iana.org/comments/11july1998-17july1998/msg00153.html
From: Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com>
"In this model policy enforcement is easy."


Re: Tired of Waiting

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

To: domain-policy at open-rsc.org, ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Tired of Waiting
From: Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:59:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <0a7601bdaf8d$003eff20$d7fd3b9d at tentacle.dns.microsoft.com>;
from Christopher Ambler on Tue, Jul 14, 1998 at 06:07:55PM -0700
References: <0a7601bdaf8d$003eff20$d7fd3b9d at tentacle.dns.microsoft.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

On Tue, Jul 14, 1998 at 06:07:55PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Kent, I still agree - but how are these arguments any different for a
> non-profit registry vs. a for-profit registry? I can't see where they are
> any different. They need to be solved, regardless.

? If the registry is non-profit/cost-recovery based, it has no
particular motivation to find clever ways to gouge customers.  While
non-profit is certainly no guarantee of economic sainthood, it does
remove many of the incentives for misbehavior.

I note in passing, for those who may not be familiar with it, that the
CORE model is a little more complex than a simple non-profit vs
for-profit dichotomy.  In the CORE model the registry is a non-profit
entity, and operates on a cost-recovery basis (that is, it is
required to charge only enough to cover its expenses).  However, the
*operator* of a CORE registry is selected by competitive bid, and the
winner of that bid may be a *for-profit* company (it could also be a
non-profit company).  In fact, the current operator of the single
existing CORE registry *is* a for-profit company.

That is, CORE is a non-profit company that controls an asset, and
hires entities to do work for it, to help manage that asset.  Those
entities may be for-profit, and they certainly compete.

And even more: CORE is a non-profit cooperative that derives its
membership from *for-profit*, competing registrars.

To some extent, then, the issue of for-profit vs non-profit is a
red-herring -- the MoU strongly supports competition between
for-profit entities.  The MoU is strongly pro-competitive.

The real issue is who controls the TLDs.  The real issue is
proprietary vs non-proprietary TLDs.  Profit vs non-profit is
secondary.

My preferred model is where nIANA, through a series of public
processes, determines that a new TLD is needed.  That new TLD is
assigned to either a currently existing non-profit registry, or a new
one is chartered, using the standardized public protocols that other
registries and registrars use.  All registrars are eligible to
register names in this new TLD as soon as it is operational.  The
registrars make money; the registry operators probably make money; but
the registry is not a profit center.  nIANA retains control over the
TLDs and the databases.  In this model policy enforcement is easy.

--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair   "No reason to get excited",
kent at songbird.com   the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html