[ncdnhc-discuss] Competition and the ORG report

[Jim Fleming]

Why is it assumed that one company will be selected ?

Where are the database migration and replication plans ?

With $5,000,000 you give a $1,000,000 to 5 other companies
to fund their infrastructure. You then replicate the database for better
reliability, stability, etc.

The "Registry" then becomes a consortium of 6 companies all
connected via the Internet. The so-called Registrars then line up
around the outside of that core vending machine of names..

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


From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
To: <rob at cdt.org>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Competition and the ORG report


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