On Fri, Feb 27, 1998 at 05:30:02PM +0100, Javier SOLA wrote:
> Bob,
[...]
>
> Let's call things by their given name.
>
> Javier
>
> At 10:56 AM 27/02/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >At 10:12 PM 2/26/98 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >>On the other hand, describing the Green Paper approach as a
> >>multiple-monopolies approach WILL work.
> >
> >The phrase "multiple monopolies" should probably be left out of any
> >statements we make. It makes no sense when applied to companies
> >participating in the same industry and eventually someone will point this
> >out publicly.
> >
> >Bob Helfant
Indeed we must be careful in our speech. *All* TLDs are monopolies.
This is unavoidable -- DNS creates natural monopolies. Therefore: It
is *true* that CORE is a monopoly.
What distinguishes CORE from the multiple monopoly scenario is that
CORE is in effect a *regulated* monopoly. It is a *non-profit*
monopoly.
The issue of whether multiple *non-profit* registries with different
policies will be more responsive to public policy input than a single
*non-profit* registry is open to debate -- I suspect that multiple
policies will just create confusion, and that policies won't change
for competitive reasons. But at this point you have to examine the
details of any given proposal.
As I have said, I personally don't care if there are multiple
registries or there is one registry -- the crucial point is that gTLD
registries be run in the public interest, and I think the unavoidable
conclusion of that principle is that they be non-profit.
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:26 PST