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

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

> 	Kent's formulation suggests that -- just maybe -- many
> of us might agree
> on a system in which a registry might or might not be operated on a
> strictly cost-recovery basis, but *all* registries would be
> subject to some
> sort of meaningful limitation on their ability to raise prices.
> (Obviously, formulating such a limitation isn't
> straightforward, and some
> folks have suggested to the list that it can't be done.  Yet
> I wonder.)
> What do people think?

It's the most rube-golberg means of price-fixing that I have ever heard
and it isn't within light-years of a compromise position. Besides, it
isn't enforcable. You simply can not force a registry to become part of
ICANN/DNSO. What is the value-add of a commercial registry joining in
this little scheme?

I have heard all sorts of FUD regarding the price-gouge bogeyman, on
this list. All of it sheer false speculation. In a competitive market,
it simply won't occur. I have more reason and evidence to say that then
the converse.

I thought education and knowlege were supposed to make one proof against
this sort of propoganda.

In Santa Monica, CA, they instituted rent control, in the 1970's. The
rents tripled in less than one year. In fact, everywhere that rent
control was instituted, rents went up like a Saturn V  booster. This
scheme will do that to the cost of domain names.