[ncdnhc-discuss] Competition and the ORG report

[Adam Peake]

What is the intent of the new language?

If it's to prevent a couple of companies from providing registry 
services for .ORG then it may be better to be specific and name those 
companies rather than using terms like "dominant".  There's a lot of 
money involved, suspect someone going to argue over what dominant 
is/is not.

As for what may happen in 5 years, so put in some words about a 
review of conditions after x (5?) years.  I assume Verisign can't 
provide services immediately (ever?) anyway, purpose of divestiture 
being to take ORG away from them.

Thanks,

Adam




>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