Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > Anything above US$10 is not just too high but is absurdly too high.  More
> > reasonable is US$2-5.
> 
> Then shut up and don't buy .com domains.
> 
> > >Which is none of your business. If you don't like it, don't patronize
> that
> > >business.
> >
> > Thank you for pointing out the problem when there is lock-in.  Not
> > patronizing isn't a realistic alternative.
> 
> What lock-in? Purchase .to, .cc, or .us if you don't like .com - or open
> new TLDs for competition.

With the existing travesty of ccTLDs doubling as gTLDs, it is understandable
that they are unattractive to the general public. With new gTLDs out there,
there might be a couple or three that could be sufficiently generic to merit
what might be called competition, but I doubt it. The proof is the
"marketing" (if you want to call it that) that NSI is doing with
com/net/org. As far as they are concerned, that old difference of
commercial/network infrastructure/non-profit is no longer there (follow
their pages while registering an available name and you get asked if you
don't want to also register them under org & net while you're at it), yet
the immense majority keep rooting for ".com". What happened to ".net" &
".org"??? Did NSI successfully market com, but not net&org? Actually no. The
price is the same, the dispute resolution is the same, they CURRENTLY don't
have that original implied meaning of non-profit/net-infrastructure, yet
they get nowhere near what com gets. Why? Because ".com" is THE place to be
(as far as public perception goes). Yes, I know you also want to be able to
get your private lock-in allotment, but that would not help, rather be in
detriment.

Yours, John Broomfield.