Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

On Nov 18, 2024, at 13:11, Noah <n...@neo.co.tz> wrote:  On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley, <h...@shrubbery.net> wrote: Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah <n...@neo.co.tz> wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > >> > 2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories. > >> > >> While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to create/perpetuate a cartel). > > > > I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel? > > A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control > over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can > perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel. And, to the extent that the service provider must excel. Competition is healthy for all enterprise. The registries are more than just an enterprise boss. They really aren’t. Contrary to the theories you keep pushing, they are businesses. They are not state agencies or quasi state agencies. They are not granted enforcement powers or any extraordinary legislative or judicial powers. They are run of the mill not-for-profit businesses.  Owen Noah