Evan, We can hardly say that .com business has something to do with free market. It's sure for fact that .com has naturally evolved to become most valuable domain commodity incomparable to any other TLD whatsoever. In the middle of the process, however, ICANN honorable establishment decided to accept eternal renewals thus de facto supporting monopoly over the widest part of domain market. This is quite far from the belief that ICANN should ensure healthy competition. Realizing this one should not be dubious about artificial price controls as a logical consequence of such a monopoly-dominant decision. Domain tasting is in somewhat similar situation. We are all here proud of achieving something that has significantly decreased the abuse (thanks God), at least for the time being, but it is to say that it was again ICANN who established the counter-productive concept of AGP despite publicly expressed reservations from the very beginning when the tasting appeared to become that abusive. Both situations have something in common, ICANN's tendency to solve problems it generates. Domain tasting is thus ICANN's victory over ICANN. Dominik -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:18 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: 'ALAC Working List' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting 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 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i cann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org