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

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

I thought that the "for-profit" part meant that they are hell-bent on
maximizing the profit. I know that in my company, our number one priority is
to see how we can increase the overall profit stream. Yes, it *is* true that
customer satisfaction etc is generally good for the long-haul image of the
company, and *should* therefore be good for the profit in the long-run,
however that is only valid where there exists competition. When there is NO
competition, the company that controls the monopoly evolves to caring less
and less about the customer and/or their image, and more and more about
increasing profit. Look at Microsoft for a prime example. Can you honestly
say that most of the world "loves" Microsoft and is "satisfied" with
Windows? A registry blocks the customers in it, and has an effective
monopoly of their TLD, which (unfortunately) is not like having a monopoly
on McDonalds hamburgers or on Ford automobiles, but like having a monopoly
on hamburgers or on automobiles (hey, I want a hamburger but don't like the
company that controls the hamburgers: fine, buy an automobile, because our
competition says that there are different products out there that you can
buy).

Yours, John Broomfield.

> 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
> >
>