RE: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)

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

Leah - you talk about what could be and what should be, I was merely
making observations based on what is.

(Is that five for me today?)



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf 
> Of L. Gallegos
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:21 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Aug 2002, at 10:11, Don Brown wrote:
> 
> > Competition, innovation, progress, no monopoly and lower 
> registration 
> > costs for consumers, to name a few . . .
> 
> If there were thousands of TLDs, or even hundreds, the monopoly issue 
> would be put to rest.  The market would take care of pricing.  In the 
> case of VRSG, it is an issue simply because it was the only game in 
> town for so long that every commercial enterprise was forced 
> to register 
> in that registry, providing a scenario where it was easy to gauge 
> consumers.  Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price 
> reductions, yes. 
>  However, it is still a monopoly in the sense that VRSG still 
> fixes the 
> registry fee.  
> 
> Had there been a hundred gTLDs added early on, consumers would 
> have been registering in many regsitries and NSI would have had to 
> compete in a fair market.  Every registry is a monoply, but 
> that is no 
> different from every insurance company being a monopoly.  If 
> you don't 
> like the practices, terms and conditions or policies of one company, 
> choose another.  
> 
> A great many of the issues driving people crazy today could go away 
> with hundreds of TLDs being made available in the USG root.  I doubt 
> we will see it because the IP interests will do all they can 
> to prevent it.  
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having a single registrar for a 
> regsitry if there 
> are many registries - small, large and in-between.  As with 
> the problems 
> surrounding ICANN's elimination of the at-large, the 
> artificial scarcity of 
> TLDs prevents the public's having a choice in the most basic areas of 
> the internet - the DNS.
> 
> All the talk of confusion raised by having a multitude of 
> TLDs is also 
> pure FUD.  People have become accustomed to changing area codes 
> constantly, as well as having to use more digits in phone 
> numbers, dial 
> around codes, etc.  The public would become accustomed to a variety 
> of TLD extensions in the same manner and more companies would 
> spring up to index them.  
> 
> Registries could succeed or fail.  People and companies would then 
> have to make changes just as they do when they move and change 
> phone numbers or an area code is changed forcing companies and 
> individuals to adjust.  It's a pain, but we all do it.  A 
> worse scenario 
> would be to not allow new area codes and have an artificial 
> scarcity of 
> phone numbers.  I see no difference with the lack of TLDs in the USG 
> root, especially when there are thousands of TLDs already in 
> existence, 
> many of which actively accept registrations.  It's no longer an 
> experiment in the sense that it can be done.  It's been done. 
>  So what is 
> ICANN's excuse?
> 
> Leah
> 
> > 
> > Thursday, August 8, 2002, 8:35:21 AM, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin 
> > <jefsey@club-internet.fr> wrote: JFCJM> yes. but what is 
> the need for 
> > a registrar (as understood today)? JFCJM> jfc
> > 
> > JFCJM> On 13:05 08/08/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> > >>Any number of them. The very existence of registrars in this 
> > >>namespace is, in itself, an innovation. The myriad of business 
> > >>models they employ represent an innovation, the 
> technology that they 
> > >>use, in many cases, represent an innovation...the list 
> does go one, 
> > >>but the specifics are well-documented and not really 
> important to this discussion.
> > >>                       -rwr
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----
> > Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> > donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> > PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: 
> (972) 788-5049
> > Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> > ----
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> 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