Re: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500
--- Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> George Kirikos wrote:
> > Afternic, Great Domains, etc.). Transitioning to an "owned" system
> > would be a big change, though, so careful thought would be needed
> > flesh out all the implications.
> Agreed. And we [INEGroup] advocated ownership of Domain Names
> some time ago. ICANN rejected that concept.
Thanks for reading through it all, and commenting upon it. I wasn't
necessarily advocating the concept either. I was just taking a step
back to see logically what could happen if one took a concept (the
search for efficiency in allocation) to its extreme. In the end it
would seem to lead (at least in one path) to a real-estate type model,
where registrars are more like Real Estate brokers and trustees,
getting commissions on sales and thus enhancing the allocational
efficiency. That would obviously be a radical change from what exists
today. There's no empirical evidence that the amount of turnover in the
secondary market could keep all the registrars in business, either, in
that real-estate type model. Registrars depend on thr "on going"
registration cash flow to stay alive; moving to a system where all the
fees are mostly up front be quite a shock. It might also enhance the
Verisign monopoly, or at least magnify monopolistic concerns at many
levels, which is a bad thing.
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html