Re: [icann-eu] Domain Name Economics

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Thomas,
This thread is not thge easiest way to approach the subject but is quite 
interesting. Confusion was that "nuclear arsenal" is a widely quoted image 
of Peter de Blanc (co-Chair of the ccTLDn AdCom), in different meaning (the 
destruction capacity of the adversary) partly enacted by China.

On 01:36 07/06/01, Thomas Roessler said:
>I wrote:
>>In order to be able to give such guarantees,
>
>(The context was about stability of domain name offers.)

So from this, I gather you talk about continuity of the service rather that 
stability of the network (or stability in the duraction). This is obviously 
a real concern. But it does not concerns the roots as the iCANN, Pacific, 
ORSC, Cinics, SuperRoot etc.. it concerns the TLDs: the same way .com or 
.vn ...

IMHO the real urgency is a TLD management tool (the IEFT works on that but 
VeriSign proprietary rigths are a problem). Others too. Also a secondary 
server system. The work for the ccTLD will obviously be usable by every 
TLD, and the other way around. This will permit more easily to roots to 
offer vault services. The cooperative nature of TLDs like the CINICs (where 
the registrants are the co-owners of the TLDs -cf. RFC 920 
multiorganizations) make them quite immune from this kind of problem.

>>you'd have to invest a lot of money into global visibility.  You'd have 
>>to make sure you have a nuclear arsenal to be used against competitors.
>
>>Now, ICANN sells (or rents, or whatever) this arsenal at retail prices, 
>>while you (and Leah, and new.net) have to develop the atomic bomb 
>>yourself, which is certainly more expensive.
>
>I have been asked off-list what precisely I mean by "atomic bomb" and 
>"nuclear arsenal".
>
>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.

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...

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.

>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.

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).

>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. You 
are talking in theory, but real financial interests in the non-iCANN TLDs 
are becoming more and more intermixed with thoses in iCANN dependent 
market. Decisions regarding possible DN policy alternatives are considered 
now at many levels and places.

Obvioiusly this is purely an open and private position and I may be wrong. 
But this is also a position based upon a daily inner and involved practice 
of the matter.

Jefsey



>--
>Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/