RE: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week

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

Wrong. A for-profit registry will be committed to delivering value-add
services and maintaining its value-proposition to its customer-base. This
hell-bent-for-profit approach is a myth propogated, by you socialists, that
hasn't been applicable since the 1940's. Every for-profit that has tried it
has lost or eroded their market. Instance/Existance proofs are rampant.
Every MBA has had this drilled into their head since the 1950's.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 9:03 AM
> To: Milton Mueller
> Cc: Karl Auerbach; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] Schwimmer Post From Last Week
>
>
> At 07:59 AM 12/22/1999 , Milton Mueller wrote:
> >The one entity that can be relied upon to police the
> registration policy is
> >the registry itself. If the registry has control (dare I say
> *proprietary*
> >control) over its zone files, and if it has an incentive to
> apply a specific
> >standard consistently, then it will do so. So, for example,
> the .bank idea
>
>
> Depends on the rest of the registry's balance of incentives.
>
> For example a for-profit registry will be highly motivated to
> seek the
> highest revenues it can achieve.  That is a goal in direct
> opposition to
> careful policing.
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
> Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
> 675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
>