ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Fee raising

  • To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ga] Fee raising
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=iTM2hvS/qCL/Guc9Wy+uT6OsQ/16LOCaPTQaG4dDhegRiAKctwzbB9o7TJcB0Ti1M1UgmUfL2KnyNbqMI1yLpJADFppxrMymRI63TPAcHR3AHk9N64og17Oc7a/HPCzOlmIAQeoCpwvrEMmWU9AEfCPqaq9fFIRVcAM++2xh7C0=;
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Clearly in a free market environ a seller should set his price at whatever he can get, keeping in mind inventory, demand and some social responsibility (not too much).
   
  Clearly in a restricted quasi-regulated industry the regulator should work with the public and private, buyers and sellers to reach a price that is manageable by all. Certainly not whatever can be gotten.
   
  {ccTLDs are seperate as cost is often a matter of regulation or intentional lack thereof and whatever is set in those communities one must assume is legitimate, assuming the government is legititmate}
   
  And I do not think that the fees at the new level are intolerable or even wrong.  But the manner and mechanism for raising the fee is dead wrong and intolerable. It seems to me that ICANN has no logical responsible choice but to require hearing and public input prior to any raises in pricing.
   
  Eric

       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>