[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [icann-eu] Domain Name Economics
- To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
- Subject: Re: [icann-eu] Domain Name Economics
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:58:33 +0200 (CEST)
- cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <20010607214025.C21190@sobolev.does-not-exist.org>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
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/
>