Re: [wg-c] lock-in

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 24-Nov-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> 
>> > > 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).
> 
> Real substantive examples:
> 
> Internic fees went from $0 to $100 (and then to $70). Quite an increase.
> Didn't kill NSI. Quite the contrary. NSI is now a multimillion value
> company. ".com" is still growing like crazy.

You are comparing apples and oranges. One period was funded by the US
Govt., which was becoming impractical for the rate at which registrations
were increasing.  You are also ignoring the fact that there are places
today to register a .com name for as low as $17.50/yr.

 > ESNIC fees (NIC for ".es") went from 0pta (aprox $0) to 12000 creation
> (aprox $75) and 8000 yearly (aprox $50). Didn't kill ESNIC. Quite the
> contrary. ".es" has a reasonable growth rate (which I believe is limited
> because of bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the esnic).

ccTLDs were not delegated under any sort of contracts.  This will NOT be
the case with new gTLDs, and hence this reference is not valid either.
 
> Sure, a price cap would be nice, then again I think that price fixing is
> illegal in many countries. Only way you can guarantee to keep prices

No one is talking price fixing, but like many industries in the US,
increases in rates have to be justified to and approved by oversight
agencies.

> down is
> to have the registry outsourced on an open competitive bid which is
> regularly rebid (3-5 years?).

This is your constant mantra, and you ignore facts that are right in your
face, and use references to back it up that are so clearly inapplicable,
I've determined that you have nothing useful to say on the subject any
longer.  You want one thing, and you will use any argument, no matter how
bad it is, to back it up.  Contractual obligations to justify price
increases and limit them by percentage and time frames will solve this
problem.

ANYTIME you place a limit in an area of commerce, you select the MINIMUM
limit required to solve the ACTUAL harm being addressed.

By your logic, airplane crashes can be avoided by requiring all travel to
be by train for intracontinental, and by ship for intercontinental, since
if there are no airplanes flying, there can be no crashes.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934