Re: [ga] "...Let consumers speak..." ???

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

This is really quite well said.  However I chose to take a more evolutionary
viewpoint.  I do not see it as so doomsday.

In the great forests of the American west we have great Pine (conifer) forests and
great Aspen groves (deciduous) interspersed.  To germinate the seeds of the Aspen
requires a fire.  For the Pine to grow well as a sapling requires the shade of the
Aspen.  So when left naturally the forests maintain an ebb and flow of Pines
choking out the very Aspen that allowed them to grow until they become to thick
and the next fire wipes them out and makes room for another grove of Aspen - and
on and on.  Failing to allow the small brush fires is what is directly responsible
for the catastrophic fires we see.  Old growth and the largest and most wonderful
trees are those allowed to compete naturally with the other species.

Now what we are doing here is the worst of both possibilities.  We are both clear
cutting the old growth and preventing the brush fires in the emerging forests.

Competition and consumer choice are the only way to grow a good internet, and it
will happen with or without approval.  But working with these forces will allow us
to grow a diverse and healthy Internet.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> >
> > VeriSign (Actually NSI at the time) negotiated very specific language into
> > the agreements to ensure that policy would not arbitrarily be implemented.
> > I strongly believe that that is a protection for registries and registrars
> > in general, not just VeriSign.  Our position has been consistent over the
> > last three years.  We will implement consensus spolicies but if there is not
> > consensus, let market forces work.  Let consumers speak through their
> > wallets.
> >
>
> It seems that a statement like this is easy to make, when you are sitting
> on an annual feed of $6 per name for 30,000,000 consumers. That is
> a revenue stream of $180,000,000 for a task that most companies could
> likely do for $10,000,000 max. That would seem to indicate that you
> have $170,000,000 in profit to live quite nicely, travel to ICANN meetings
> at will, and to invest in whatever venture catches your fancy.
>
> Meanwhile, the out-of-touch ICANN Board of Directors, helped
> to take $50,000 from about 40 companies last year (some small), and
> then proceed to limit them from competing with you, or your counterparts
> in other registries. It would be very interesting to hear how you or anyone
> thinks that situation is fair. It is sad that the U.S. Government, has no
> mechanism for stepping in to end this travesty.
>
> The only people who can change the situation are the companies and
> consumers who will have to work together to start over and to
> build a Next Generation Internet. Yes, they will have to do that without
> the gold-plated servers, or a $10,000,000 per month cash-flow, but
> they may have more fun and more of an appreciation for what they
> build, and consumers may reward them with modest returns for the
> services they provide. Some of those services will help those consumers
> to route around what has to be one of the sad chapters in the history
> of mankind.
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> IPv16....One Better !!
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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