Re: [icann-eu] Domain Name Economics

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, at 21:40 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > On 2001-06-07 18:39:20 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> >>I wouldn't say that everyone who wants to get a new TLD with 
> >>ICANN must be of the scale of Verisign.
> 
> >The application fee made it impossible for many organizations, 
> >businesses and non-profits, to apply. If you are small, you will 
> >not get in. Maybe not Verisign size is what was demanded, but in 
> >any case a few sizes too big in my view.
> 
> Look at the bucks you can make with TLD operations.  And look at the 
> investments you have to make in order to make these bucks.  $50k 
> isn't that much when you put it into context.

I would prefer that not all TLDs were just for profit... 

> >>However, look at the alternatives: Leah's .biz is going to be 
> >>squashed precisely because it is too small and too invisible to 
> >>pose any serious danger to the ICANN-sponsored one.
> 
> >I fail to see what you mean in this context. Too small is bad 
> >luck? My point was, that it would be great if an organization like 
> >ICANN could help avoid smaller organizations to be crushed only 
> >and only if these same organizations had a (better) chance within 
> >the ICANN process. Since they haven't they lose either way: they 
> >are crushed or kept out.
> 
> Precisely.  Without a centralized organization such as ICANN, 
> smaller players don't have the faintest chance.  With such an 
> organization, they _may_ have a chance, assuming reasonable 
> behaviour of such an organization.

Let's get the organisation to behave then.

> >>But can you guarantee me that the pre-ICANN .biz is robust 
> >>enough to survive when a large competitor (the ICANN .biz) tries 
> >>to squash it?
> 
> >Of course not, but so what? Can ICANN guarentee all TLDs' 
> >survival?
> 
> They should, don't you think?

They can't. And I don't see why it is necessary.

> >>In order to be able to give such guarantees, you'd have to 
> >>invest a lot of money into global visibility.
> 
> >A nameserver? A lot of money? 
> 
> Persuading all those ISPs to actually know about your TLD?

Not necessary, if it is added to the root they use, right? 

> >>Thus, domain name holder interests need to be represented within 
> >>(maybe forced upon) the ICANN framework.  But domain name holder 
> >>and end user interests will only be extremely badly represented 
> >>within the SO framework where various other interests can easily 
> >>overrule them.
> 
> >>You see where this argument leads to? ;-)
> 
> >No. All I see is that for economical reasons it will be impossible 
> >to get things right through mere market forces (partly because we 
> >are talking about a regulated and restricted market!). Let's act 
> >upon that then.
> 
> Right.  So this argument directly leads to user representation, and 
> actually to the at large seats on the board.

A functioning (and full, 9 seats) at large would be the most we might
get right now. It may very well make a difference. Shall we go for it?

marc@dot.low


> On 2001-06-07 18:15:56 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
> >So from this, I gather you talk about continuity of the service 
> >rather that stability of the network
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> >>Both terms are referring to the "mutual assured destruction" 
> >>doctrine, and more specifically to the nuclear war analogy I 
> >>gave in my original message: I'm thinking about destructive 
> >>capabilities which are suitable to create an intolerable risk 
> >>for any possible attacker, thus preventing rational attackers 
> >> from actually using their own capabilities.
> 
> >This is a strange military way of thinking about business and DNS 
> >name space management. Such a praxis is certainly interesting as a 
> >kreigspiel but in a real business world I do not now which Venture 
> >Capitalist or reasonable corporation would want to invest into a 
> >colliding TLD. The case of .biz is particular: it is only a tacit 
> >agreement between NeuLevel and iCANN: you get .biz and you pay for 
> >the legal dispute with ARNInc.
> 
> Why shouldn't this be repeated as long as you are sure that your 
> opponent will lose the legal dispute - if not legally, then 
> economically?
> 
> >This is also I am afraid a basic misunderstanding of the issue. 
> >Many as you are trapped into a wrong understanding of the 
> >inapropriate word "alternative. This word is mostly used by some 
> >as an insult and by no one as a flag. Its only use may be to 
> >qualify the root market: there are several alternatives: between a 
> >globally free and open vision of the DNS name space management and 
> >a restricted and paying vision by the iCANN, Real Name, 
> >Name.Space, New.net, etc... between a full use of the DNS by the 
> >iCANN and the so called "alt.root" and plug-in based/http oriented 
> >like New.net, Namsliger, etc...
> 
> I'm certainly _not_ caught within wrong understandings of certain 
> words.  In fact, if you read my original post, you'll notice that 
> I frequently write "the monopoly" instead of ICANN, and that I'm 
> generally just talking about players and their capabilities.
> 
> >But frankly I do not know any proposition corresponding to what 
> >you fight. May be could you be so kind as to point one to me. This 
> >seems to me lefts over from an archaic dispute about the creation 
> >of the iCANN.
> 
> Eh?  I'm not fighting anything.
> 
> I'm trying to describe a model for ICANN and the domain name market 
> in general which - I believe - can be used to better understand what 
> happens, and why it happens.
> 
> >>Translated to the DNS, players would need what one may call 
> >>"destructive visibility": A TLD must be visible on a scale which 
> >>makes it impossible to launch a competing version of this TLD 
> >>without experiencing all the negative effects Kent Crispin's 
> >>internet-draft lists.  In such a situation, it wouldn't be 
> >>economically reasonable to engage in a battle about this TLD - 
> >>the best possible outcome (from the attacker's point of view) 
> >>would be a destruction of both players.
> 
> >This seems to me Kent's youth war (IANA creation). Kent is not 
> >taking about the reality, but creating a virtual reality where 
> >Vint's move about .biz would be acceptable. In the real world this 
> >is not the case.
> 
> Acceptable to whom?
> 
> Creating an ICANN-backed .biz which competes with Leah's is feasible 
> and acceptable from an economic point of view:
> 
> - Leah's .biz doesn't have destructive visibility, so the net won't 
>    be destabilized considerably by introducing another one. 
>    (Another way ot put this is to say that the ICANN-backed .biz can 
>    run in a fairly stable manner.)
> - Leah may not have the funding to go through an extensive lawsuit
> - an ICANN-backed .biz will have destructive visibility
> - an ICANN-backed .biz may amount to a license to print money, so 
>    the cost created by a war with Leah can be neglected
> 
> I'm not talking about moral here.  I'm not saying it's a nice thing 
> to do.  I'm just saying that it can be done, that it's economically 
> rea sonable to do it, and that it doesn't even cause considerable 
> collateral damage.
> 
> >IANAG but as said previously I never met a case, except ".biz" by 
> >Vint Cerf. But even in this case, the motivations are purely 
> >political. In this particular case you may be right: Vint may want 
> >the destruction of both players (their most sensible response 
> >would be an alliance).
> 
> How should the new .biz lead to the destruction of both players when 
> one player has marginal visibility (and won't get more than that), 
> while the other one has destructive (ICANN) visibility?
> 
> >>Obviously, destructive visibility doesn't need to mean global 
> >>visibility - but, on the other hand, near-global visibility like 
> >>the one ICANN can offer to new TLDs is certainly destructive.
> 
> >This seem to indicate that you consider that ".biz" like decisions 
> >could be a basic strategy for the iCANN and be repeated: the iCANN 
> >trying to destruct the existing non-iCANN TLDs. I doubt the iCANN 
> >would do that. The impact on its credibility and on the business 
> >would be too devastating.
> 
> Where's the economical impact of Leah's .biz being squashed, except 
> for Leah?
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>