Re: [ga] price policy

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Veni, I understood perfectly. I think our definitions of spam were
different. There is more than just email spam. Email spam cannot be
controlled through minimum pricess on domain names. Thats not an opinion.
It's a fact that anyone who does any type of Internet marketing knows.
Dishonest and unethical people will always find a way to do email spam.
Domain names are not necessary for them to do so. Again, fact, not opinion.

You suggested domain pricing had something to do with controlling spam. I am
simply pointing out why that would not work. If you consider that an attack
where you must run to defend yourself, then I suggest you lighten up a
little.

You say I always attack you. I have not done so. I have however contradicted
your "proposed" way of dealing with it. That means it is a discussion. If I
am correct that domain prices have nothing to do with controlling spam, then
it is not an ICANN issue as I suggested.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://icann.thingsthatjustpissmeoff.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "elliot noss" <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>;
"ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] price policy


> 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" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
> >To: "elliot noss" <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>; "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/471 - Release Date: 10/10/06
>
>