Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: 'Really would like to hear comments on the deletes issue...'

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bruce and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  First Bruce and Bret, what does any of your two's arguments
have to do with deletes?

  In any event consider the following:

  Any registrar that relies mostly upon DN registrations as the
main part of their revenue, does not know how to run a business
and has a poor "Any term" business plan.  Hence to put forth the
argument regarding return in revenues from a registrar business
as a justification for cost thereby associated is a poor business
decision.

  Therefore the Market will determine the costs that they deem as
reasonable.  As Registrations of DN's are again in a downturn,
demand seems to be lagging supply.  As such perhaps incentives
by reducing cost of DN's in any name space would be in order.
And any registrar now in business that relies solely on DN registrations
as for revenue or even as the major part of their revenue, will be
unable to remain in business for very long...

Bruce Young wrote:

> Ray Fassett wrote:
>
> |  well said.  let's see how much more money in time and resources can be
> |  spent reconciling this equation rather than allowing the "low
> |  cost item" to be driven by market forces rather artificial ones.
>
> I'm not clear about your position.  The above seems to indicate that you are
> *for* reductions in domain registration costs while . . .
>
> |  How about having the organization just pay
> |  the "potentially enormous value" - or something more consistent
> |  to it - at registration and renewal?
>
> . . . would seem to say other wise.  Are you for or against letting the
> market set the price?
>
> I'm obviously not a registrar, but I do know a little about support costs
> for IT equipment, and I suspect that the $7.00 to $9.00 a year that the
> "licensed speculators" you refer to are charging is probably more in line
> with fair profit above actual costs than the $20 to $30 that used to be the
> norm.  If not, they'll shortly be out of business, and those with just a
> slightly higher price points, or greater efficiencies in their processes,
> will fill he void.  That's part of letting the market set the price, too!
>
> I do not endorse the idea that a domain name is necesarily valuable in it's
> own right, any more so than any other company name.  The company itself
> gives the name value through its reputation, not the reverse.  For instance,
> what is the value of ENRON.COM today, as opposed to two years ago?  However,
> I also do not endorse the concept, espoused by some IP lawyers and a judge
> or two, that a domain name is nothing more than an "Internet phone number".
> Its true value lies somewhere between these two extremes.
>
> But that logic of "potential value" is immaterial when talking about domain
> name *registration*.  The cost of same should be based on actual costs plus
> a fair mark-up.  Although I've heard otherwise from some, I for one think it
> appropriate that those who make their living from operating the Internet, be
> they registrars or otherwise, have a right to earn a fair profit from their
> labors.  However, in many cases in the past, and in some cases still today,
> there are people in the industry who have made inordinate profits by
> manipulating the system, and caused damage to others in the process.  Such
> behavior is self-defeating, because it discredits the entire industry, and
> threatens to bring down the heavy hand of the regulator on an industry
> better served by a less-regimented environment that fosters innovation. And
> that hand is coming if the industry continues down its chosen path.
>
> There is no doubt that the Internet industry has been caught with its had in
> the cookie jar, and no amount of nay-saying and spin control is going to
> allow them to remove it gracefully.  Even the mainstream press has noticed
> (finally!), and has begun to question the DoC's current "hands off"
> approach, particularly after ICANN approved "reforms" that insulate it even
> further from regulating outside voices.  Since ICANN isn't willing to spur
> reform, it is now up to the Internet industry to do so.  Their one chance is
> to begin self regulation in ernest.  That means engaging conversations with
> the At Large and NGOs, listening to what they have say, changing their
> business practices accordingly, and urging ICANN to open its processes.  It
> means *publically* rebuking ICANN and your and fellow industry members when
> you catch them doing something underhanded.  And it means treating your
> customers as the valuable resource they are, instead of sheep to be fleeced.
> Because the "sheep" are getting really pissed off, and have begun talking to
> each other about it!  And if enough of them get together in anger, the
> resulting stampede will be ugly!
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon USA
> bruce@barelyadequate.info
> http://www.barelyadequate.info
> --------------------------------------------
> Support democratic control of the Internet!
> Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de