Karl Auerbach wrote:

On 08/14/2009 12:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

...

Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.

The point that I was trying to make was something altogether apart from the tasting issue.

Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another chunk of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line with the actual cost of providing the registry services. And the cost of Coca Cola is totally out of line with the price of sugar and water. But that's not the point.

ICANN, its wisdom, has made the philosophical call that domain names are to be treated as commodities rather than identities, and as such are subject the the whims of the market. The price of a domain is related simply to what others are willing to pay for it, not the cost to deliver. Verisign's shareholders should expect no less. Having chosen the commodity path, it's up to ICANN to ensure healthy competition and protection from abuse. Beyond that, I am dubious about artificial price controls. If people think they're getting gouged, let's give them some alternatives. I think that this is why most folks in At-Large support new gTLDs and a diversity of registry operators -- the more the merrier, so long as there are some assertions of registrant rights (and production of such a document is now underway, though slowly). There's nothing *requiring* a registry to be domainer-friendly. Despite the obvious good intentions, I am extremely wary of injecting dubious price-policing into a free market. If it's not a free market, then let's address *that*. - Evan