[log in to unmask]">

Harold:
I want to make sure I understand where you are going with this.
Most people involved in this controversy are advocating 
that unsponsored gTLDs be _more_ regulated than 
sponsored gTLDs. So my point 4 was meant to point
out that if a case for intervention exists, it is basically
the same for both sponsored and unsponsored.

But what you say below implies the
opposite: sponsored gTLDs should be more regulated 
by ICANN than unsponsored. Is that what you are saying? 

Harold Feld <[log in to unmask]> 01/08/04 05:33PM >>>

I must disagree with point four.

Milton Mueller wrote:

4. The PDP should consider whether there should be a distinction between
policies applied to sponsored and unsponsored TLDs. NCUC believes
the answer is no: if the justification for regulation is economic; i.e,
that users are locked in to a supplier and cannot switch service providers
without incurring damaging costs, then the same fundamental economic
problem applies regardless of whether the registry is sponsored or not.
If the justification for the process is technical, the answer is the same:
there is no relevant technical distinction between sponsored and un-
sponsored registries.

Sponsored TLDs may have communities in which particular changes are more
damaging than others.  Furthermore, the collective nature of the
community surrounding a sponsored TLD lends itself better to closer
consultation with registrants.

For example, to the extent museuems have customized how they use their
domain names for particular purposes, in reliance on past practices of
the .museum registry, a registry change might well have a significant
effect on the entire community.  For larger, more diffuse registries,
such as unsponsored TLDs or sponsored TLDs with broader communities,
such as .biz, the cost of community consultation is much higher and the
vulnerability of the entire community as a whole to a change in policy
is decreased.

Harold