Re: [ga] WLS

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:27:12 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
 > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:40:23PM -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
> > >
> > > Dramatically increase the cost for whom?  Registrars, speculators? or
> > > consumers?
> > >
> > > Chuck
> >
> > Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> > "consumer".
>
> Speculators register domain names for the primary intent of reselling
> them later for a profit.  Consumers don't have resale as a primary
> intent.  As you know, the law is quite capable of using intent as a
> meaningful distinguishing characteristic.  In general, you are making a
> "slippery slope" argument, and, again, as you know, slippery slope
> arguments are not valid.

Hi Kent

The three sentences used by John Berryhill are combined into one, single
meaningful piece of text.  To show that you are quoting out of context, you
should add three dots as follows:

> Please provide a meaningful distinction between a "speculator" and a
> "consumer" . . .

In relation to your point, are you arguing that speculation is inherently
a "bad thing"?   Perhaps you would consider if that is actually the case.

A policy maker often needs to consider what is the "harm"?  Clearly any breach
of a person's trade mark rights can be tackled through the UDRP or the Courts.

As usual your remarks are cryptic to the point of unintelligibility.  However,
by distinguishing between a speculator and a consumer, you seem to be arguing
that "harm" is caused to the public interest by speculation in domain names.

Let's consider some of the undesirable consequences as follows:

(1)    That speculators "land grab" many thousands of desirable domain names
with a view to hoarding and/or sale.  Undesirable consequences include:

    (a)    a reduction in total supply of domain names, and
    (b)    disappointed people who can't get the name they want.

(2)    That supply-demand factors cause increased prices.  Undesirable
consequences include:

    (a)    windfall "unearned" profits by speculators, and
    (b)    excessive prices being paid by normal consumers.

(3)    That constant bombardment of domain names for sale bring the industry
into disrepute.  In particular:

    (a)    It looks like ICANN is falling down on the job, and
    (b)    without zero tolerance, there is generally less compliance.

If these assumptions are only partly true, you might argue that
speculation is harmful.  If so, there is a very easy way to stop it
viz make it a condition that any public offering for sale of a domain
name is grounds for revocation of that domain name "licence".
You could even prohibit transfers between registrants !!

But none of that is the point, is it?

What ICANN is doing is giving VeriSign a monopolistic edge through WLS.

That's because VeriSign is the REGISTRY and not the REGISTRAR . . .
which is contrary to all the promises about registry-registrar separation.

And which is a very valid slippery slope" argument indeed !!!!!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss









--
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