Re: [icann-eu] Domain Name Economics

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Marc and all,

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> 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...

  First of all it takes allot more than just the $50k that ICANN charged
for accepting an application for consideration of becoming a ICANN
accredited registry for a gTLD or TLD.  It takes allot of $$
to build, and market such as registry.  But I agree with you Marc,
strictly all commercial TLD's is not a good idea....

>
>
> > >>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.

  Well as we have seen with New.net, individual organizations can and
will be successful.  New.net is just the beginning and only one method.

>
>
> > >>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.

  Agreed.  In fact the more the ICANN BoD moves away from
stakeholders desires and needs as well as market forces of demand,
the fewer ICANN TLD's will survive, and fewer still will thrive.

>
>
> > >>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?

  Even this is not necessary Marc, as New.Net has shown clearly...

>
>
> > >>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?

  We won't even get the full 9 seats for the @large.  The Boardsquatters
are not going to give up their seats anytime soon...

>
>
> 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/
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208