RE: [ga] Re: [wg-c] Object lesson in why we need new TLDs

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 13-Nov-99 Mark Measday wrote:
> On the polemical side, I  fail to see why you do not applaud the active
> use of .md in the spirit of the Louisiana purchase or the tranfer of
> Alaska, two other cases where the American entrepreneurial genius
> transformed otherwise unused assets.
> 

No one is criticizing him for what he has done.  Rather we are pointing to an
obvious motive for wanting to limit/delay/restrict the number of new Top Level
Domains that might dilute the desirability of the TLD he manages and the domains he
holds within it that he is actively trying to sell.

What is interesting is that he is not the only ccTLD manager who has tried to lobby
in the Workgroup-C for the same thing, with the same motives.  Sure, they are just
trying to do what is good for their business, and it is entirely appropriate to
point out that the position they are taking is more than probably influenced by the
big financial stake they have in not seeing a broad expansion of the TLD namespace.

It is domains like .NU, .TO, .CC, etc that accept global registrations that have the
most to lose when the domain space is expanded. They are already facing a steep
problem with domain registration prices coming down ($17.50/yr from one Registrar)
and having a hard time justifying their prices that are higher than this.  They have
the "scarcity" of available names in their favor at the moment, and that is really
one of the only things in their favor now that they have lost the price advantage. 
With new gTLDs, competing with com/net/org on price as well, domain names are likely
to become even more competitive price wise, and scarcity won't be as significant
issue.

New TLDs stand to significantly impact their financials.

When someone comes out, appearing to be an "internet user" and talking in the frame
of mind of being "just a regular person concerned about the issues affecting us all"
(paraphrasing of course) when in fact there is a vastly different reason for their
views, it is indeed proper for those who know the truth to point it out.  Had he
been upfront about who he was, and where he was coming from with regard to his
position, then this wouldn't even be a subject for discussion.  It was his not being
direct and straightforward about it that made it an issue, not Milton.


--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934