Re: [ga] Re: Many vs. few new gTLDs - a graphical representation

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh, but George, when a big corporation like Proctor and Gamble do it, it's
not the same thing. </sarcasm> Microsoft and AOL are huge speculators and
there are others, yet when an individual does it, people treat that
differently.

Speculation is a very important part of capitalism and a free market just as
you said. I just would liek to see that expanded into tld namespace.

George, I sold almost all of my speculative domain names before 2000 and got
out with a small profit, and now only buy domain names that I plan to use. I
might however indulge my speculative nature with a new tld if given the
opportunity. I could get the funding if there was a system in place where we
knew the investment would be a safe one. A $50,000 non-refundable
application fee, where the org that you pay the fee to can just say "nope,
that one isn't a good idea" and keep the 50 grand, is not a safe bet.

Chris McElroy
http://www.runawayteens.org




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jim McAtee" <jmcatee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<new-gtlds-pdp-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <domains-gen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 6:53 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: Many vs. few new gTLDs - a graphical representation


> Jim,
>
> Look up what an "ad hominem" argument is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_circumstantial
>
> My personal wealth is secure, independent of whether new gTLDs are
> adopted. It matters more to me how .com is operated by VeriSign, than
> whether new gTLDs are introduced. The introduction of .info and .biz
> didn't cause my wealth to decline, indeed the opposite happened. I just
> happen to be in the group that thinks the "few gTLDs, each with a lot
> of active domains" is a better design than "many gTLDs, each with a
> smaller number domains", for a variety of reasons (I've outlined mine).
>
>
> If you have an argument to make that many new gTLDs are a good thing,
> you're free to do so. The community can then decide which design should
> be adopted. Calling one a "kook" or labeling them as speculators (which
> is funny given the large number of .info and .biz domains were
> registered speculatively, and not by me), doesn't contribute much to
> the debate, except to demonstrate a lack of imagination. At least I
> tried to show some imagination, with a few thought-provoking and
> striking pictures. :) New arguments do contribute to the debate.
> Name-calling does not.
>
> By the way, "speculators" are not a bad thing per se. If someone else
> happens to get to a domain name before you, or paid  more for it than
> you did in an auction, and is not breaking any registration rules (like
> UDRP, etc.) or laws, and refuses to sell it to you, they are not doing
> anything wrong if they're not using the domain name in a matter that
> you desire. "Speculation" in many markets makes them more efficient, in
> that their pursuit of self-interest causes markets to reflect all
> information in prices, brings about equilibria, and ensures that goods
> are used in a manner that maximizes their long-term profitability.
>
> Speculators are a *healthy* part of capitalism. Market-based economies
> couldn't exist without them. Indeed, it's the absence of speculators
> that characterizes the most unhealthy centrally planned economies, like
> the old Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, North Korea, etc.
>
> And, for the record, I buy more domains than I sell. :) And I own a lot
> fewer domains than such "hoarders" as P&G, who are doing nothing
> substantial with their Beautiful.com domain, for example. What
> anti-speculation rules do you propose to protect us from such "bad
> behaviour" that P&G is supposedly engaging in, "hoarding" such
> "beautiful" domain names??
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/