RE: [wg-c] my position paper v. 1.1

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

Just in case no one noticed, the hawk is flying again.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 8:53 AM
> To: Jonathan Weinberg
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] my position paper v. 1.1
>
>
> Jonathan,
>
> As others have noted, I too find your position paper an
> excellent effort at
> thorough consideration.
>
> There is one, key weakness to it that prevents my adding my
> name to the
> growing list:
>
>
> At 07:25 PM 10/16/1999 , Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >         For-profit registries have a different set of
> advantages.  Most
> >importantly, the registry's interest in making more money
> will lead it to
> >be more energetic in seeking to heighten efficiency, lower prices and
> >provide additional value-added services.  Similarly, a
> for-profit registry
>
>
> While the rest of the paper balances issues carefully, on
> this point you
> make an eyes-closed, idealistic assertion that is demonstrably false.

Demonstrable only with corner-case arguments.

> A company (commercial or non-commercial) that feels its
> revenue stream is
> protected will not automatically be inclined to improve its
> services.  In
> general that motivation comes only from fear, such as fear of
> competition.

Blanket statement that is only true in a very specific set of circumstances.

> Although it might, eventually, be possible to find a way to permit
> for-profit registries, the track record with NSI shows
> clearly that we do
> not know how, yet.

NSI was started by academics and scientists. Their market blundering should
not be applied to REAL capitalists. It is especially true that a sample of
ONE doesn't prove a damned thing.