RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:cambler-dompol@iodesign.com]
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 3:36 PM
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> > I see the structure having a fixed price across all Registies, fixed by
ICANN.
|> > There may be some diversity between TLD's to increase usage but personally
I
|> > would prefer to have a standard price across all.  I see it as a funding
|> > mechanism for ICANN and for development.  The current price is $6 USD per
|> > domain.  I would like to see it set at $4 USD.  $1 going directly to ICANN,
$1
|> > going into a fund for research and development, the other $2 to remain with
the
|> > Registry for operating costs and associated development.  There would not
be any
|> > competition between Registries aside from promotion of the TLD they
operate.

Hi Chris

|> That is illegal in the US. The only reason they did it with NSI is because
|> they were a government contractor.

There are always ways around such things.  Nor do I hold with the Internet
infrastructure being bound by US law.  I assume you refer to the price fixing as
being illegal.  I would not have any problem with it being competitive,
providing the Registries were run on a non-profit basis by non-commercial
entities.  This may be the best option, with ICANN setting a price cap and
defining how the fees should be distributed.  The Registries could still use
price as a competitive option and as WX has pointed out, satisfy the need as
some people see it for competition to drive innovation and development.  My main
contention is that such infrastructure should not be in the hands of localised
commercial interests.

|> This will never happen unless congress changes the law. That's just the way
it is.

Don't see it as a barrier, just another factor to be taken under consideration.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html