On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> > Where does it say in the policy that this was going to be a $200 process?
>
> That's one of the beauties of the policy space that gets compounded by the
> fact that Verisign still has something that looks and acts like a monopoly -
> we need more TLDs that compete directly with ..com - this, coupled with the
> reality that companies are free to set the prices of the products that they
> sell (which is underscored in the ICANN contract) means that VGRS will
> continue to charge us too much for small things like the RGP until such time
> that they no longer can.
>
> In my mind, this means a couple of things...
>
> a) we need more effective competition to com.
> b) we need a framework by which it is relatively easy for competition to com
> to get into the market - right now it is virtually impossible.
I'd argue that we need more effective competition *in* .com, in addition
to other gTLDs. Also, competitors are going to have spend some money to
sell the public on the alternatives, something I've seen no serious effort
at(media outlets external to the Internet.)
The reality is that the vast majority of people who are doing
business on the Internet continue to want a .com address as evidenced by
registration numbers which is why VSGN was willing to give up other .org
and .net. Most people also seem to try to get to an organization if they don't
know the web address by tacking on ".com". ".biz" for example sounds terribly
cheesy, and it indicates that you probably haven't been around as long as
the holder of a .com.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
