[ncdnhc-discuss] Competition and the ORG report

[Jim Fleming]

It was my impression that the "grand plan" (developed years ago)
was to take the $6 per year and divide it 6 ways, $1 per company
providing 1/6th of the "Registry" operations.

Assuming that the existing Registry is one of the six.....

It looks like the easiest way to divide up the .COM names
is to assign them to the 5 Registrars that have the best
price/performance, etc. They then become the "Registry",
each contributing part of the distributed resources (servers,etc.)
needed to make it all work. The Lame-D servers provide a layer
around the existing IPv4 providers.

http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv8/Papers/LameDCache/
2002 0:201 .COM
    http://www.dotster.com
    http://www.gandi.net
    http://www.godaddy.com
    http://www.registerfly.com
    http://www.stargate.com
2002 1:158 .CLUB 
2002 2:143 .FAMILY
2002 3:219 .INFO
2002 4:58 .LLC
2002 5:194 .INC
2002 6:171 .TV
2002 7:195 .CHURCH 

http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv8/Papers

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
http://www.IPv8.info

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Courtney" <rob at cdt.org>
To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: <rob at cdt.org>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Competition and the ORG report


> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>