|
New Website for Domain Name Statistics Junkies
|
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.
|
|
 |
Simply wanted to add something that many of you probably know. WebHosting.info & Logicboxes are the branches of a registrar named Directi, based in India.
Cheers,
BYN
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Looks Like Verisign is the Big Winner Not Counted
$6.10 to the Registrar and $6.00 to Verisign
It is amazing how many companies, that now have
millions of customers, do not invest one dime to
compete with Verisign and ICANN. One would think
that by now, with a market-price set at $6.10
that the Registrars would be demanding a more
fair, 50/50, split with Verisign ($3.05 and $3.05).
That of course may result in a new market-price
of $3.10. Another 50/50 split would then give
Verisign/ICANN $1.55 and the Registrar $1.55.
Where would it end ?
The Registrars appear to have no interest in
directing ICANN to provide them a benefit. ICANN
appears to exist to support the Verisign
dominance (for a fee). ICANN has no choice but
to strip Verisign of .NET and eventually .COM.
It is interesting that Registrars apparently do
not see themselves growing up to be Registries.
Note: An 8-person company (ISOC) with zero
prior Registry experience is handed the .ORG TLD
while Registrars with 500 people are not viewed
as qualified. .NET could of course have to be given to the
ARIN, RIPE, APNIC trio to keep them solvent. .COM could be easily run by a trio of large
Registrars. That would currently be a $2 per
share split. It is amazing that the Registrars
are not stepping forward to demand that ICANN
provide them some benefit. The Registrars pay
the fees and Verisign and ICANN are the big
winners with the guaranteed cash flows. All of
the risks are shifted to the Registrars and
their Resellers.
Maybe it will take some large Resellers to
eventually step forward to compete with Verisign.
Registrars appear to be caught in a collecive
gaze that rivals Narcisus. Maybe it is because
clueless spectators are wowed by statistics
that really indicate nothing about the state
of the .NET
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
? "lacking...country codes" ?
"country codes" ?
Are you serious ?
Do you *still* think TLDs are tied to countries ?
Check out http://www.McDonalds.LAN
for your nearest location.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
<a><href="http://www.aa.info">
http://www.aa.info
</a>
<a><href="http://www.ab.info">
http://www .ab.info
</a>
<a><href="http://www.ac.info">
ht tp://www.ac.info
</a>
<a><href="http://www.ad.in fo">
http://www.ad.info
</a>
<a><href="http://w ww.ae.info">
http://www.ae.info
</a>
<a><href=" http://www.af.info">
http://www.af.info
</a>
<a ><href="http://www.ag.info">
http://www.ag.info
</a>
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.dailychanges.com/
325,009 New .INFO Names
Looks like there is a market for FREE names.
The production .INFO servers operate in a hair-pin
mode. They take queries in and send *most* of the
queries to the proof-of-concept market-trial
servers (now being filled with names). They also
handle the **premium names** directly and fill
out the entire .INFO name-space.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current /msg31495.html
I believe it is more efficient to begin with scenario O (an activity
within ISOC). If for some clear reason this does not appear to be
working and cannot be amended within the O framework, then it would be
appropriate to re-examine scenario C. I think there is a great deal of
overhead and duplication embedded in the C scenario and I do not
understand the necessity for this to be the first choice. Vint Cerf
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like there are multiple options out there...
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
