Re: [ga] price policy

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think we can all agree that pricing has no causal connection to the issues that are being targeted by price policy.
   
  e

Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Chris,
before you write down, perhaps you should have woken up first.
It's not me who is suggesting this. I was just forwarding a concern 
from a legitimate business in my part of the world, where cheap 
domain names cause problems - not only with e-mails, btw, but also 
with search engines, advertising, etc.

The discussion about minimum/maximum/no-limit prirce is exactly for 
this list. Note - it's a discussion, and not an opinion, which I am 
trying to enforce on you (unlike many times, when members of the list 
enter the "discussion" with opinions, and that means there's no real 
discussion).

veni

At 10:47 AM 11.10.2006 '?.' -0400, kidsearch wrote:
>People use cars to drive drunk and we don't ban cars or limit who can buy
>them. Because some people spam, we should raise the prices on domain names
>or set a minimum? Do you really believe that setting a minimum price on
>domains will have any affect whatsoever on spam? We could raise the minimum
>price to $100 per domain name and there would still be spammers.
>
>As for the spam problem in general, yes it's a problem because it clogs
>networks. Receiving spam as a user is no worse than receiving junk mail.
>Better actually. I have to crumple the junk mail up and throw it in the
>trash can. I have to pay garbage collectors to pick it up. Junk mail is a
>small part of that cost. It also uses paper and few junkmailers use recycled
>paper. All I have to do with spam is hit delete.
>
>There are many bigger problems we should deal with and since this list is
>about ICANN and they have nothing at all to do with controlling or
>eliminating spam, maybe we should stick to other reasons we do not need
>minimum price controls. Actually not sure why with all the stuff that has
>already been pointed out why we are even still on that.
>
>Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
>
>Sorry if I rambled. Just woke up and my first email is something from veni
>suggesting setting minimum prices for domain names can somehow be related to
>or deal with spam. Maybe I'm just dreaming and he didn't really say that.
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Veni Markovski" 
>To: "elliot noss" ; "ga" 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:00 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] price policy
>
>
> > I was also thinking that way, but recently I got some complaints from
> > normal businesses, complaining from the low-cost domain names as
> > sources for spam. People register millions of domain names; then they
> > create fake content, and make money from PPC. That is, they use the
> > low prices of domain names to make money out of spam. They say the
> > majority of spam comes from .info, .org and other cheap (< $ 1 ) domains.
> >
> > veni
> >
> > At 11:19 AM 10.10.2006 '?.' -0400, elliot noss wrote:
> > >that is an easy one. no.
> > >
> > >On 10-Oct-06, at 10:06 AM, Veni Markovski wrote:
> > >
> > >>Everyone has opinion on the price policy for TLDs.
> > >>
> > >>I hear arguments about the roof of the prices, but I haven't seen
> > >>anything on the foundation. So, my questions is, should there be
> > >>some regulation for the minimum required price for TLD?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Sincerely,
> > >>Veni Markovski
> > >>http://www.veni.com
> > >>
> > >>check also my blog:
> > >>http://blog.veni.com
> > >>
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Veni Markovski
> > http://www.veni.com
> >
> > check also my blog:
> > http://blog.veni.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/7/06
> >
> >


Sincerely,
Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com




 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.