Re: [wg-c] lock-in

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

I got something out of Kent's URL Lock-in and Competition note, and the
follow-ups by Bill and John.

I have to confess that there is something to this discussion that I just
don't get. Ample evidence exists that buyers exist for price points well
above the cost to create and service a record. The speculative market is
not hidden.

The arguement appears to turn on the existence, or inexistence, of names
for which such a price point is asserted to the registrant, nuanced by a
temporal association. If the price assertion is subsequent to the record
creation date it is "lock-in", and some arguementative point is in play,
if prior it is "speculation" and no factional values are contested.

I don't think it is necessary to establish that there exist instances of
super-cost pricing both prior to, and subsequent to, record creation, as
the issue arose from consideration of opportunities to maximize return
on investment, that is, from consideration of whether the assertion that
for-profits and non-profits are indistinguishable for some range of test
conditions. It is discretional conduct to price well above cost, and one
of the two forms has the discretion to so price, if not the internal
duty. If the operator limits its discretionary conduct to one, the other,
or both of "lock-in" and "speculative" pricing, that's about as interesting
as its preferences for horses or dogs at the track.

If those attached to the notion that some significant issue is in play
due to the temporal association of price assertion and record creation
wish to advance the arguement that my parents were closely related, or
that I lack intelligence or integrity, feel free.

The issue is only really interesting if one thinks of registry operators
as deriving a strategically significant (but non-recurring) net revenue
stream from registrations only of highly referenced names. This kind of
operator is not deriving strategically significant recurring net revenue
stream from references to highly referenced names, and is unlikely to be
able to mount a competitive bid and retain a delegation.

Looters make less money than cultivators, and cultivators are far better
neighbors. The quick cash-out of some few, some luck few, that band of
brothers, present at the fall of ICANN's Harfleur Castle on some Saint
Crispin's Day or another, is not very interesting, or significant.

My teen's drama club just did a Shakespeare-a-thon, and being a dutiful
parent, I soaked up enough to cook up the above glib line.

Cheers,
Eric