Re: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Gorge and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone in this discussion should take a time out and read this one,
> > and then read it again.
>
> > Wednesday, Wednesday, January 09, 2002, 1:28:19 PM, Elliot Noss
> > wrote:
> > > The Inefficiency of flat pricing
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > The current market for domain names is characterized by flat-priced
> > supply
> > > and variable-priced demand. I do not take a politial position on
> > this, I
> > > merely note it as observation. This market inefficiency (again
> > observation
> > > not position) has lead to the existance of a robust secondary
> > market. It has
> > > also lead to a significant amount of the current CNO namespace
> > sitting
> > > unused.
> >
> > > I have strong reservations about any solution geared at the
> > expiring market
> > > that magnifies that inefficiency. By definition it leaves money on
> > the table
> > > and leaves demand unfulfilled at the same time. The worst of both
> > worlds.
> > > Ideally we could find a solution that was able to create a robust,
> > efficient
> > > secondary market which would benefit registrars and the registry,
> > but if
> > > done properly would most benefit registrants.
>
> I believe the premise that flat-priced "supply" is an inefficiency
> because it doesn't match a variable-priced demand is actually
> incorrect. If one has studied economics, the case of "perfect
> competition" is where the supply curve is flat. Thus, all the "surplus"
> goes to the consumers (domain registrants), and suppliers/producers
> (registrars and registry) see only normal profits. This isn't thus an
> inefficiency, it would be what ICANN and market regulators would
> desire.
>
> It's an imperfect analogy, though, as domains are "one of a kind", and
> can't be perfectly substituted, like RAM chips or gold or pork bellies.
> The quantity is always going to be exactly 1, regardless of price.
> There isn't really a "curve" at all, there are just "points" in space
> in the price-quantity graph. One can't buy 2 sex.com's, or 11
> eBay.com's.

  I can't quite completely buy your last statement in this analogy.
For instance, your not quite right that one cannot buy more than
one Sex.com.  On can buy/register sex.biz, sex.net, sex.org (This
one would be interesting from a potential content standpoint >;) ),
six.info, sex.museum, sex.coop, and perhaps if congress has it's
way, sex.kids.  Given that yes these other potential derivatives
( Using a wall street term here ) they are not the exact same a
sex.com, they may be used in exactly the same way and are
very similar sounding and than also could therefore be considered
in the potential situation of a Domain Name dispute, as has already
happened with Sex.com once, as confusingly similer in a UDRP
filing.  Big mess eh?

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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