[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: at-large representativeness



Yeah, that's what I was getting at... especially since ICANN says it's a
technical oversight thing, not a policymaking thing. I just meant its
incest with the VeriSign monopoly, artificially scarce gTLDs, and high
barrier to entry into the gTLD process artificially keeps prices high.

-s

On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 11:10, eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> Whoa,
> Technical needs are not the determination of value of something.
> Wait, unless someone is running contrary to Antitrust and Monopoly concepts?
> I guess if you get it for free and no one else can have it because of
> government intervention, maybe the price should be reflective of actual costs
> rather than greed.
> (do not get me wrong I appreciate greed)
> 
> Eric
> 
> Stephen Waters wrote:
> 
> > > Stephen Waters <swaters@amicus.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > p.s., Honestly, I can't imagine any technical reason why domains cost
> > > more than $5/year -- especially after reading the results of Karl
> > > Auerbach's tests for millions of TLDs under BIND. DNS is just fucked.
> >
> > This is to what I was referring...
> >
> > http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01528.shtml
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                        Name: signature.asc
> >    signature.asc       Type: application/pgp-signature
> >                 Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part