| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Self-Regulation Self Destructs?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 20 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
"A monopoly position on the zone servers allowing them to expand into competitive markets and foreclose upon them."
fine. now explain George's comment about how Verisign would be "abusing consumers" any more than the status quo.
Similar to how you define Microsoft, the "monopoly" power rests in the concentration of activity in one TLD. The .com zone is indeed a monopoly but the fight is about who gets to gouge the consumer and a far cry from any sort of meaningful representation that "consumer interests" are best served one way or the other. Just not part of the equation and should be left out of the discussion/debate, in my opinion. For example, the market value of a deleted domain name should be near irrelevant and a concept most consumers of domain names might find to be in their best interests. Show me any "vested interest" representing such a concept within the ".com monopoly". The fact that second level domain names that do-not-even-exist can carry a market valuation in the hundreds of millions of dollars should be sending out bells and whistles that the market is but about "abusing consumers". Where is this in the discussion? Instead we have business models built around how to capture these inflated revenues from the pockets of consumers and then pretending their best interests are being represented as a result of "competition". Am I wrong, Mr. .Web?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:Self-Regulation
by RFassett
|
| Starting Score: |
1 |
point |
| Karma-Bonus Modifier |
|
+1 |
|
| Total Score: |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
Yes, I believe you're wrong.
First of all, how is the revenue from non-registered domains names being taken "from the pockets of consumers?" Consumers are paying for this? I don't think so.
The issue is not, nor has it ever been about consumers. That's a red herring of odorous proportions.
The issue is one of services and control. Nothing more, nothing less.
Verisign has taken their position of control to insert themselves above others who were offering services. With SiteFinder and WLS, they propose to be the sole source of those services, and the sole beneficiary of the revenue from those services.
That's the issue at hand.
--
Ambler On The Net [ambler.net]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
