[ga] Re: Profit = Tax (was ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later)

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Ray - there is no shortage of names. You can imagine a shortage as big as
you want, but it still doesn't mean that consumers are being "penalized" on
the secondary market or that there is an actual scarcity of choice or that
the registry operators don't have a monopoly on the supply of names within a
TLD.

And finally, each of the price caps, save Verisign's, was picked by the
registry operator when they put in a proposal to run a TLD. Verisigns was
negotiated during the early days of ICANN. There is no mission creep in this
area - its business as usual. The policy gets perpetuated because it isn't
reasonable to have different rules for different operators.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@fassett.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <ross@tucows.com>; <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 23:46 Moo!
Subject: Re: Profit = Tax (was ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later)


> "You are being penalized because there is a secondary market?"
>
> A secondary market exists.  The heated WLS debate is proof.  It is held up
> artificially.  People pay well over "retail" for a domain name in this
> artificial market place.  They pay a penalty for doing so. I am not sure
> what else you can call it.
>
> "Last time I checked, there were more than 250 alternatives to dotCOM."
>
> I do not know of anyone that is a citizen in every country of the world
> whereby they could then pick from 250 ccTLD's.  A handful of ccTLD's have
> re-positioned themselves as a gTLD (why?).  ICANN expanded the space with
2
> (if you include .biz).  The secondary market exists for a reason. People
> that purchase in the secondary market are penalized.  Your argument is
> circular.
>
> "If you are paying $1000 for domain names because there are no reasonable
> alternatives, one might be inclined to think that you aren't looking hard
> enough."
>
> The secondary market exists.  The WLS debate is proof.  People are
choosing
> this option and, obviously, must find what I term as a penalty to be of
> value...that's not the point.  It is artificial and there is no technical
> reason for it to exist.  A few parties benefit, the majority do not.
>
> "Would you prefer that the price of domain names were solely priced by the
> monopoly providers?
>
> ICANN has claimed competition as one of its accomplishments for the
> community.  The drastic evaporation of VRSN valuation in 2002 is being
> attributed to it no longer having a monopoly position.  It is not easy to
> port away, but it is possible if options were made available.  Many
> newcomers are forced to the secondary market where they then either pay
the
> penalty or walk away because options are not available.  An environment
> that would influence members of the community to walk away for no
technical
> reason is a disgrace to anyone that in any way allows it to exist.
>
> "I'm sure that VGRS would *love* to reprice their inventory at "market"
> prices."
>
> and is the same as saying that Verisign is not able to price their
> inventory at market pricing in a competitive environment.  I fail to
> understand this logic.  Yes, Verisign stands to gain big in the short term
> because they - and only they - have the .com contract.  Achieving
> competition was supposed to be the "proof of concept".  You can't wipe out
> the dominance of .com overnight.  But, you can't say you want to introduce
> a competitive environment and then regulate one contract holder because it
> had the huge headstart. It's part of the process.  Again, the argument is
> circular (under the capitalistic umbrella).
>
> "Sometimes, in order to ensure a free and fair market, certain checks and
> balances need to be artificially introduced. The price cap is a perfectly
> reasonable market control."
>
> Now here is where the argument totally falls apart.  Exactly who in the
> entire realm of the non-profit, private ICANN (currently under drastic
> reform) is qualified to make this "perfectly reasonable" determination?
> The idea is for ICANN to be a technical body that merely coordinates the
> existence of numerous gTLD choices for the community such that DNS remains
> stable.  The problem is that this entity has chosen to play gatekeeper
> rather than following through with the proof of concept in any efficient
> sort of way.  It needs to regulate the wholesale price cap in order to
> maintain this gatekeeper role and is what you describe as a check and
> balance.  For who?  And for what technical reason?  What you describe is
> Top-Down.  It is mission creep.  Some agree with mission creep.  I do not.
> I do not believe in trading mission creep so that Versign can be regulated
> at $6...but I admit to being in the minority.
>
> Ray
> --
>
>
>

--
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