Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs/The poor poor man

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

And that is what civil discourse is all about. I again find that after clarification that I agree to your position and underlying rationale.
  (it does appear to me that corporate shell games, created an anti-competitive scenario on previous "new" tlds)
   
  e

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          I'm not advocating anything that has anything to do with the financial aspect. Just want to clarify that. Didn't mean to give anyone that impression and not sure how you reached that conclusion.
   
  What I am talking about is that we put a limit on the number of tlds one comapny can offer or manage or whatever.
   
  Of course they have to be financially and technically able to run a tld. There is no question about that.
   
  What I'd like to see avoided is the abilitry of a handful of companies controlling all the viable tlds.
   
  To put it as plain as possible. Rules that insure competition among those companies who are financially and technically able to manage a tld benefit users worldwide.
   
  Leaving it to market forces might allow a very few companies to monopolize the real viable tlds and that would NOT benefit users worldwide.
   
  Part of ICANN's purpose is to foster competition, so the limits I mentioned are within the scope of that mission.
   
  Chris McElroy, President, 
  Kidsearch Network
  http://www.KidsearchNetwork.org
  http://www.MissingChildrenBlog.com
  http://www.RunawayTeens.org
   
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: Karl Auerbach ; kidsearch 
  Cc: Danny Younger ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs/The poor poor man
  

  Techically and mechanically Karl deals with this issue admirably. And Chris is certainly right to ask it. But they beg for a much deeper question to be asked.
  Why should we care that a poor woman own and manage a tld? Better yet; Wouldn't it be a good idea to limit ownership of tlds to those who can afford to run them properly, bond and insure for errors resulting in harm to others, employ and ensure wages to employees, afford to update and keep the latest equipment, employ the experts to assure compliance in law, civil rights, non-discrimination?
  It is a slippery slope when we begin a welfare cybersociety and give a tld to someone simply because they cannot afford it.
   
  e

Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, kidsearch wrote:

> Karl, sorry to be such a pain, but I still don't feel that answers my
> question. What is to keep a few big companies from buying up all the
> good/viable TLDs as soon as the process is available, effectively cutting
> out the "open to everyone" idea?

In a pure auction situation the names would go to those with money.

In an auction modified with a lottery some portion of the names would be 
distributed, by random chance, among those who have bought relatively 
inexpensive lottery tickets (e.g. $5).

Yes, lotteries can be manipulated - the rich folks can buy lots of tickets 
and thus increase their chances, the rich folks can use strawman to hold 
those tickets, the rich folks can buy the rights from the winners, etc.

But at least the lottery creates some chance that the big guys won't get 
every name.

Besides, if we find that happening we can then adjust to deal with the 
concrete situation - like perhaps engaging in a one-time process to grant 
a pile of TLDs to non-commercial applicants.

If we try to get a perfect system we will be waiting for new TLDs until 
the sun freezes over. We should strive for a system that is adequate, not 
one that is perfect.

--karl--

  

    
---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping   


			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping