Re: [wg-c] lock-in

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

> >> > > 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.

No, I'm not ignoring or missing out facts. What I'm counter-arguing is the
affirmation that you guys throw around that any substantive increase in
price will put the registry out of business. Whatever the reasons for the
substantive increase, the end-user doesn't care about that, all he cares
about is that the price has been increased. If this is because the
government has stopped funding free registrations, or because of the
contract or lack of it that the registry has, or because ICANN decides to
request more direct fees or simply because the registry decides to double or
triple its fees, the end user sees an increase. Have increases slowed or
stopped registrations? No. So the incentive of "it can't increase fees
becuase it becomes uncompetitive and goes out of business" is moot.

>  > 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.

The example was in response to what was requested: examples of fee
increases. As mentioned before, whatever goes on in the background between
the registry, ICANN, the government, IANA or whomever, for the end user in
the foreground, all he sees is a certain price. This price is just what he
will send off to the registry and probably not think twice about it.

> > 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.

Once an entity has a guarantee that they get to keep a resource
indefinitely, oversight and regulation actually gets that much more
complicated and becomes very heavy, and has lots of complication. If there
are limited terms, and the system is up for rebid regularly, then the
oversight actually gets to be much smaller, as there is not that much room
for wrong-doing on behalf of the registry, and thus not that much need for
extensive oversight on behalf of the overseer.

> 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.

By your logic, anyone can fly whatever plane they want, and it's up to the
customer to choose the right airline with the right level of security. If
the airplane crashes, then it's a competitive market and its the problem of
the user for having chosen the wrong airline.
Stupid analogies work both ways.

Yours, John Broomfield.