RE: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@ebarn.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 1999 8:48 PM
>
> >This isn't correct. His assumptions aren't "blind", his
> arguments have
> >weight because they are consistent with a basic economic
> theory, which
> >is well proven. It's called the "law of supply and demand",
> in case you
> >haven't heard about it.
>
> I'm not quite sure that I agree with this. My references have
> been about
> the scarcity of sld.tld pairs and the market value of such.
> Historically
> speaking, the availability of close substitutes for these pairs (ie.
> sld{a}.{g}tld vs. sld{a}.{alternative}/{cc}tld) have had little or no
> effect on the prices of the alternative pairs. Some pairs are
> worth more
> simply because of the tld that they are associated with - the
> introduction
> of new cctld registries has never produced a measurable price
> movement on
> the existing gTLDs (.to vs. .com, or .com vs. .net for that
> matter). Supply
> and demand theory would indicate that as new tlds are made
> available and
> old tlds are popularized, the price would trend towards zero. To my
> knowledge, this has never occurred.

This is exactly the point that Chris was making. It is also the point
that I was making. However, it hasn't occurred because it is not a free
market, at the moment. It can not occur as long as TLDs are restricted.
The current restrictions, on supply, are exactly the reasons that a
average price for a domain name is around $35US per year, when it could
be much lower. Adding new TLDs, with the same registry, will not
increase competition only a greater number of registries will do that.

I feel that I am actually taking a moderate stance, and so is Chris. We
(MHSC and IOD) would like to operate competitive registries. But, we can
not do so without new TLDs. But, we only need one [TLD] each to do so.
IMHO, pgMedia is missing the point. Just like they missed with their
anti-NSI law suit. (A number of us chuckled privately over that one).
The key is the registries and their number. Sure, there can be
non-commercial registries, even public ones. The tendency has been to
argue against commercial registries, pointing to NSI as the evil
example, and to make non-commercial/public-interest the ONLY registry
model. We (MHSC and IOD) are arguing that this is both myopic and
unrealistic.

BTW, I am firmly of the opinion that the ONLY way Kent's model will work
is as a government institution. It is not incidental that the only
business model he [Kent] has direct experience with, is with government
institutions. In fact, the IAHC/MoU model was closely parallel to that
of a government instiutution. If we wind up going that way I see no
point to removing USG control of the roots (aka "privatization") and I
might side with the Heuben's in that instance.

The problem is that the institutional model will not work in the face of
free-market competition, any more than communism can survive with a
capitalist neighbor. Communism/Institutionalism is too passive for that
to work. Historical instance-proofs are extant. IMHO, This is why that
camp is more exclusive than the free-market camp.

--------------------
Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
http://www.mhsc.com/
mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
--------------------