Re: [ga] VeriSign raises .com/net prices

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Karl,
I fully agree with this remark. More over, ICANN's policy leads to 
the uneasy feeling that the legacy namespace can actually be 
racketed. That can only lead to instability and favor stable, cheap, 
and permanent alternative architectures (for example Google, 
keywords, aliases, handles, open roots) of simpler, cheaper, more 
stable, warrantied governance.

ICANN must understand that it only stays around because the cost of 
changing it appears to the users as to be higher than the cost of 
surviving it. The NTIA/IETF/ICANN/IAB do a pretty good job at making 
believe that their root and naming solution is exlusive and 
necessary. One does not read ICP-1 enough, where ICANN defines an 
experimentation framework in order to R&D its future architecture, 
possibily without authoritative root file.

In turn, Verisign should better explain its costs. I am only 
surprised that they do not take advantage from the sharp DNS traffic 
and nameserver load rises resulting from Web.02 (far more urls to be 
resolved, reduced TTLs).

jfc

At 23:38 06/04/2007, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> It is perfectly reasonable and, in fact quite proper, for Verisign 
> to raise its  registry price.
>
> It is allowed by the contract with ICANN, and Verisign would, at 
> least in the minds of a goodly portion of its shareholders, be 
> derelict if it did not avail itself of this opportunity to raise prices.
>
> If there is any one to frown upon in this matter it is ICANN (and 
> it's puppetmaster, NTIA) who gave permission for this increase 
> witthout any concern whatsoever for the actual cost of providing the 
> registry service.
>
> We ought not to blame Verisign for doing what Verisign is - a 
> competitive, for-profit, enterprise that is entitled to maximize its 
> worth and profits.
>
> But we ought to blame ICANN for failing to adequately do what ICANN 
> most clearly is - a regulator - in that ICANN's normal answer to 
> incumbent "stakeholders" (of which Verisign is most definitely one, 
> and internet users are most definitely not one) is "yes".
>
>                 --karl--