[ncdnhc-discuss] Competition and the ORG report

[Milton Mueller]

Rob, 

Five years from now is irrelevant to the decision as to who
gets the initial delegation. As to other registries, I think you 
are incorrect: if you think that attempts by major registries to 
acquire or perform contract services for other TLDs will
not attract antitrust scrutiny at the national level or
attention from ICANN if it involves a reassignment of the
contract you are dreaming. 

If you are indeed "all for promoting competition" you might
tell me what policies or mechanisms you would favor. 
Keeping dominant providers away from the initial 
delegation of .org just seems like a no-brainer to me.

>>> Rob Courtney <rob at cdt.org> 01/24/02 10:19AM >>>
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