Re: [icann-eu] ICANN Board's TLD resolution

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, at 04:57 [=GMT+0100], Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> At 17:20 18/11/2000 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > > but seemed to dismiss
> > > the idea of assigning a monopoly open registry with a high price
> > > level.
> >
> >I must try to see the show again. I cannot at all remember this to
> >have been a big issue. Not that it isn't important.
> 
> the remark I remember was something like "we started this whole thing, and 
> introduced the registry/registrar split, to get away from monopolies and 
> high prices - why should we go back to that at this stage?"

That does ring a bell with me. I do not see the point, however, to be
valid as soon as there are more registries offeering basically the
same thing: generic TLDs.

> >A registry that acts as sole registrar does not in itself constitute a
> >monopoly, of course, as long as there are more registries.
> 
> it's a monopoly registrar for *that domain*, of course.

Yes, but only Ford sells Fords and Daewoo Daewoos. So why can't
Verisign sell .NET and IOD (or Afilias, I am not fussy) .WEB?

> >  I for one
> >cannot see, that this is a problem from now on. Why not have
> >'exclusive' domains at a higher price?
> 
> That's the .biz model. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

I guess it will not, but I am a known sceptic. It is more profitable
to sell i5j.com and all its brothers and sisters to speculators @$10,
than just 2% of the possible combinations @$100.

-- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)