On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:50:56 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 09:13:49AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> > There is a more fundamental problem with the "20 year deals", or any
>> > similar scheme: a creative monopolist can always find ways to get
>> > around them. "Oh we are so sorry that our old server is only
>> > capable of handling 20 hits a minute. You need to upgrade to our
>> > new, premium plan..." A 20 year contract is a bandaid to cover a
>> > particular abuse, but we can't possibly think of all possible ways a
>> > monopolist could exploit their position. You need to deal with the
>> > root cause, the monopoly.
>>
>> Even a non-profit can do this.
>
>I'm glad you realize the problem.
>
>But of course, with a non-profit the incentive is much, *much* less,
>especially if it is a community controlled non-profit such as ICANN.
>With a for-profit the incentive for creative thinking is orders of
>magnitude greater. And we have all seen just how creative NSI can
>be...
>
>> If it's how you do business, fine. It's not how I do business.
>
>In fact, every indication is that you are only in this for the
>possibility of monopoly profits.
>
>And even if both you and I were absolutely pure at heart, I would
>rather that neither of us had the opportunity to become corrupted.
A registry is no more a monopoly than a car manufacturer is Kent.
Provided there are no artificial limits placed on the number of
registries and the models underwhich they operate.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
