<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Sarah,<br>
<br>
I'm copying your question and my response to the main
CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as the discussion of scenarios
has been limited.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks for sending
this. Looks okay. I am just having trouble understanding #8
(Technology competing with DNS) and why the consequence would
be the same as that of #5.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Scenario #5 posits a industry specific financial crisis, and
anticipates a significant reduction in domain sales generated
revenues, hence registrar and registry failure, where those
registrars and registries business models fail under reduced
demand, hence continuity costs to the corporation which has made
some "stability", hence persistence guarantee to the remaining
registrants.<br>
<br>
Scenario #8 posits a technology competing with DNS, and
anticipates the same consequence as Scenario #5, as you've
observed.<br>
<br>
Distinct root causes are posited which have indistinguishable
consequences. <br>
<br>
Turning to the root causes hypotheticals for Scenario #5 -- domain
industry specific events affecting business models ...<br>
<br>
Suppose a loss of return on investment for the industry specific
pay-per-click business model -- the ppc business model coupled
with "domain tasting" caused the .com zone to grow by a third.
"Tasting" was ended by Board action a decade ago, if I recall
correctly, so a decline in PPC could reduce the largest source of
recurring revenues by a third in the space of one or two renewal
cycles, with failures of PPC-dependent business models (I'm not
suggesting that either the .com operator, or the corporation, are
PPC-dependent businesses).<br>
<br>
Similarly, suppose second level domain registration of trade marks
by third-parties no longer presents a dilution liability for trade
mark holders. Again, and industry specific collapse of business
models predicated on either trade mark exploitation or trade mark
protection is certain, with a loss of recurring revenues to the
corporation.<br>
<br>
Turning to the root causes hypotheticals for Scenario #8 --
competitive technologies associating resources and identifiers ...<br>
<br>
Suppose a commodity platform vendor or consortium of vendors offer
a resource and identifier association mechanism with user uptake
competitive with the existing DNS mechanism and market. To the
degree the non-DNS resource and identifier association mechanism
obtains market share, the DNS market actors -- registries and
their sales channels, the registrars, and the corporation, will
loose revenue.<br>
<br>
If you are unfamiliar with non-DNS resource and identifier
association mechanism, there was hosttables, which today could be
distributed more timely than the every-three-days frequency we
made distributions from SRI prior to the conversion to distributed
lookup (DNS), meeting most use cases other than those depending on
"rapid update" -- at zero cost to the registrants during that
period. We should expect that researchers around the world are
investigating successors to service and/or resource location
applications -- some pursuing string-similar search, which has
obviously matured into an industry larger than the DNS industry,
and some pursuing alternate forms of loosely coupled distributed
lookup.<br>
<br>
I trust that this explains why both #5 and #8 have recurring
revenues reduction consequences in an otherwise unaffected general
economy.<br>
<br>
Finally, a reminder that SOIs must be submitted ...<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
On 1/5/15 11:28 PM, Sarah Kiden wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABKLyKhhYy_Gyup0rzSunzJxxc3mkXpRiDWe3FfgTrJeV+LoWA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Hello Eric, </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks for sending
this. Looks okay. I am just having trouble understanding #8
(Technology competing with DNS) and why the consequence would
be the same as that of #5.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please clarify. </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Sarah </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Eric
Brunner-Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" target="_blank">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Colleagues,<br>
<br>
Attached please find an initial set of scenarios, in two
pages, in .pdf and .docx formats.<br>
<br>
Feedback via email please, either to me directly (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" target="_blank">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>)
or to the WS4 sublist (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ccwg-accountability4@icann.org"
target="_blank">ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a>).<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance,<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability4@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>