Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
ICANN here is moving yet further away from any notion of technical stability of DNS. And we need to remember that price isn't the only thing that is variable here - users could find themselves subject to other surprises. For example, perhaps PIR might decide that names in .org must adhere to an Appropriate Use Policy that requires them to shut down on the Sabbath. But as for the variable pricing aspect - The other week there was an article about an ant-like creature that snaps its jaws shut at a speed of around 200km/hr. Well, in the DNS space we have a similar snapping sound, and that is the instant at which a person buys a domain name and thus locks his/her identity into a given TLD. If that person had a true variety of domain name products to chose from, rather than the empty shelves with three almost undifferentiated choices that ICANN gives to us, and if among those products was real competition for these newcomers than we could rely on marketplace forces to protect customers, perhaps with a little help to nudge DNS vendors leven their products with long term protections. But as this week's GNSO meeting demonstrates ICANN is becoming even more of an intrusive and heavy regulatory body, making it ever less likely that users will ever have a real marketplace of choices. There is no doubt that radically different business models, such as my .ewe - http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html - will never pass ICANN's restrant-of-trade gauntlet. Those of us who are locked into an existing TLD had no real choice among products. And we deserve and require protection. Were ICANN to get out of the way and allow new TLDs with real diversity, and real competition, then we could expect that those that offer contract-term protection will tend to garner those *new* customers that are concerned about that kind of thing. I still have not had any answer to my question why, since none of this is tied to any technical necessity pertaining to DNS query/response service, is ICANN not a combination in restraint of trade? (I am not here asking the related question whether it is a legal combination or not.) And, as always: Internet users still need somebody to watch over the upper tiers of the DNS service - the system that transforms DNS query packets into DNS response packets - so that it neither wobbles nor becomes inaccurate or slow. Almost without exception all internet users believe that ICANN is protecting them from that kind of DNS service issue. But ICANN is not doing that. Those others, the root server operators for example, who are doing it are not obligated to do so, and in some cases are subject to a higher mandate (e.g 'national security') that may make them intentionally chose the dark road. So, the primary and imperative job that we hired ICANN to do is a job that is not being done. And just as Spain fell off the internet yesterday, it is completely possible that the entire internet could fall off the wagon and all ICANN would do is to say "not my job". --karl--
|