Re: [wg-c] lock-in

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

On 24-Nov-99 John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> 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.

You are comparing increases in price by a MONOPOLY, which has nothing to
do with what price increases will cause in a competitive market.

> 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

Prove it.  They only have the guarantee for as long as they remain in
compliance with the terms of the contract.

This is my last response to you on this though. Frankly, I'm tired of the
repetition.


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