RE: [wg-c] lock-in

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

> Behalf Of John Charles Broomfield
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 3:58 PM
>
> > On 22-Nov-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > The FTC also failed to consider the vast disparity
> between value and
> > > cost -- maintaining a domain name record is, for
> practical purposes,
> > > costs very close to zero, while the value to the company may be in
> > > the millions of dollars.  That leaves a lot of room for price
> > > increases that are well below the threshold of visibility.
> > > Concretely, the cost of a domain name could be increased
> by a factor
> > > of ten, and still not equal the cost of having a legal
> professional
> > > do even a cursory review of the situation.
> >
> > First of all, Kent, this situation WOULD NOT OCCUR.  Even in a total

> Of course it does happen, and of course it WOULD happen. Most
> ccTLDs can
> just about impose any price they see fit, and it's not the
> PRICE that stops

You missed the point John, or are you trying to contribute to this FUD? Kent
is  engaging in pure speculation about an extortion scheme  .... that has
never occured and will probably never occur. Its pure alarmist FUD. The
registry that tried this would wind up with no customers in a short hurry.

The demand has been made for real substantive examples. It has been ignored,
and in Dave's case, re-directed to an irrelevant issue (typical
D'Crock-has-missed-the-point-again stuff).