Multiple monopolies is the only way in which the approach in the GP can be
described. When a company has complete unregulated control (or even
regulated) over a public resource (a TLD), it is called a MONOPOLY, and the
US and the European Union have very strong laws to avoid such a thing,
which would automatically be applied if the GP went through, creating total
chaos in the Internet. If the USG forced such a thing, it would probably
result in fragmentation of the Internet.
The only purpose of the multiple monopoly approach is to maintain the
status quo of NSI, otherwise nobody would have even thought of it... except
those who would like to control a public resource for their own profit,
such as Ambler, Fenello, etc... nothing to do with the well-being of the
Internet, only private uncontroled profit.
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
>
>