Re: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing

["William Stacey [MVP]" <staceyw@mvps.org>]

Thanks Ray.  I would agree.  My intention was not to emphasize the cost factor but to point out that a larger player could benefit
*us (the consumer) by leveraging their economies of scale in not only the passed on cost, but the added features and value add they
could bring to the table.  They are big boys and can figure out what they need to charge in a bid war.  And no, they do not need
subsidizing and I did not mean to suggest that.  I guess I meant that you can gain leverage (both features and cost) from getting
the big players bidding and wanting to "win".

Moving past the cost issue, I think the real value (and need) is to have some of the new services, service levels, and features I
listed.  That IMO should be the focus.  I guess the conversation should be what are the new minimum requirements (i.e. service
levels, features, etc.) that any potential registry would be required to implement and let the players bid on those.


William Stacey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@fassett.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <staceyw@mvps.org>; <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Planning for 2007 -- ICANN negotiations over .com wholesale pricing


"People like IBM and EDS may even operate it at a loss for the "talking
points" factor or industry recognition - which ultimately can turn into
profit for them."

I am not looking to flame suggestions but the registry space is for-
profit.  If the community wants to revert the regsitry role back to that of
non-profit, that's one thing.  It's a decision.   But to masquerade as a
non-profit space for whatever reasons of "goodwill" is to me part of the
problem we have today.  Competition is the crosscheck for the market place
in a for-profit arena.  This has been artificially stunted, not given its
proper chance.  Supporting costs of operations from profits derived by way
of market share from sources totally unrelated is an unstable approach at
best.  Sooner or later Peter wants his money regardless of how many zero's
are on the top line.  This is not the way to properly "subsidize" the space
if indeed it is determined it should be subsidized again.  If the registry
role should be subsidized again, then the reasons for this needs to be
articulated.

Ray

-- 




--
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