[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] lock-in
You aim as badly as D'Crock does. Do you REALLY not get it? Go back and read
Kent's charges again.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> Behalf Of John
> Charles Broomfield
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 6:29 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] lock-in
> > > > First of all, Kent, this situation WOULD NOT OCCUR.
> Even in a total
> > > Of course it does happen, and of course it WOULD happen. Most
> > > ccTLDs can
> > > just about impose any price they see fit, and it's not the
> > > PRICE that stops
> > You missed the point John, or are you trying to contribute
> to this FUD? Kent
> > is engaging in pure speculation about an extortion scheme
> .... that has
> > never occured and will probably never occur. Its pure
> alarmist FUD. The
> > registry that tried this would wind up with no customers in
> a short hurry.
> > The demand has been made for real substantive examples. It
> has been ignored,
> > and in Dave's case, re-directed to an irrelevant issue (typical
> > D'Crock-has-missed-the-point-again stuff).
> Real substantive examples:
> Internic fees went from $0 to $100 (and then to $70). Quite
> an increase.
> Didn't kill NSI. Quite the contrary. NSI is now a multimillion value
> company. ".com" is still growing like crazy.
> ESNIC fees (NIC for ".es") went from 0pta (aprox $0) to 12000 creation
> (aprox $75) and 8000 yearly (aprox $50). Didn't kill ESNIC. Quite the
> contrary. ".es" has a reasonable growth rate (which I believe
> is limited
> because of bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the esnic).
> I see no indication that an substantial relative increase in
> pricing in
> domain name registration would have significant impact in the
> amount of
> names registered by that registry. Note the difference
> between value and
> cost. Cost of registration of a domain name (to the registry) varies
> depending on who is doing the estimating, but generally the
> figures given
> are between $1 and $5. However, *ANY* company that wants to
> have internet
> presence is not going to feel at all bothered by having to
> pay $10 or $100
> for their domain name (registrations haven't shot up because
> of price drops,
> nor have they gone away because of price increases).
> If a registry charges $10 initially to get a bunch of
> customers, and then
> ups the ante to $100/yearly three years down the road, it
> would be very
> unlikely for them to lose 90% of their customers, so they
> would actually be
> getting an enormous benefit. I'm not talking about something
> ridiculous like
> taking the yearly price to something like 1million, but
> "just" multiplying it
> by 5 or 10 from a low starting point. An extra $100/yearly
> for just about
> ANY company to maintain internet presence is going to go completely
> Sure, a price cap would be nice, then again I think that
> price fixing is
> illegal in many countries. Only way you can guarantee to keep
> prices down is
> to have the registry outsourced on an open competitive bid which is
> regularly rebid (3-5 years?).
> Yours, John Broomfield.