[ncdnhc-discuss] Competition and the ORG report

[Rob Courtney]

What about in five years? Hard to say whether there will even be a 
dominant provider (in which case would this stipulation cease its 
effect?) or whether it will be the same one. The impact of this 
statement could be unpredicted.

As I say, I am all for promoting competition but I am not sure this 
is the best mechanism. I'm not clear on why the .org operator should 
be required to operate under this constraint, when the other gTLDs 
aren't.

r

At 7:00 PM -0500 1/23/02, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Register.com, Nominet, DENIC would not qualify as "dominant"
>under any definition that I have seen, since none of them
>occupy anything more than 3 percent of the global
>registry market.
>
>Remember that these statements are not binding stipulations
>in the registry contract but policy guidance intended to
>help the board figure out to whom to make the initial
>delegation. I would be happy to add a statement to that
>effect if it would make you sign on.
>
>>>>  Rob Courtney <rob at cdt.org> 01/23/02 02:34PM >>>
>Milton--
>
>Increasing competition is important but some additional discussion
>might be useful on this. Are non-commercial interests best served by
>excluding potentially low-bidders from contracting in .org? What if
>the new .org operator wants to contract with Register.com, Nominet,
>DENIC, or other major providers? What if they want to contract with
>VeriSign five years from now? And why should the .org registry be
>forced to operated under restrictions on its backend services that no
>other gTLD is required to meet? There seem to be a lot of questions
>that I'm not sure are answered. It would be good for the constituency
>to at least acknowledge them before approving this.
>
>r
>
>>OK, I have had several favorable comments and no
>>objections. I will replace the word "provider" with
>>"actor" and forward it as constituency-supported addition
>>to the ORG report.
>>
>>--MM
>>
>>
>>   "NCDNHC urges the Board to increase competition and
>>   diversity and encourage new investment in the
>>   provision of gTLD registry services, by ensuring the
>>   market position of existing dominant actors are not
>>   entrenched nor enhanced through participation in,
>>   taking an interest in, or contracting to deliver
>>   critical services to, the new .org management
>>   organisation."
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Discuss mailing list
>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>--
>
>Rob Courtney
>Policy Analyst
>Center for Democracy & Technology
>1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
>Washington, DC 20006
>202 637 9800
>fax 202 637 0968
>rob at cdt.org
>http://www.cdt.org/
>
>   --
>
>Add your voice to the Internet policy debate!
>     JOIN THE CDT ACTIVIST NETWORK!
>       http://www.cdt.org/join/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss