At 1/4/02 3:36 PM, Ross Wm. Rader wrote: >Not if the registrars have anything to do with it. The proposal is neither >comprehensive enough, nor focused enough for anyone to endorse it at this >point. > >More info here: >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01727.html
Preach on, Brother Ross. That's what I was trying to say (only yours is more coherent). In addition to my general agreement with the whole thing, I specifically support the idea that an auction-type model is what's needed to actually balance supply and demand. The introduction of a second price point at $46 doesn't do it -- that's far too high for some names and way too low for others. In real markets, prices are infinitely variable. In addition, keep pressing the point that the registrars should get the majority, if not all, of the profits from any such scheme. Verisign Registrar is welcome to their share (which could amount to a lot -- but I'm fine with it as long as they have to compete with other registrars for the profit). If, instead, a deal were structured so that the registry gets the majority of the profit, that would occur only as a direct result of their monopoly position -- a monopoly which they were awarded based on their promise to maintain a $6 wholesale price point. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
