Re: [ga] Afilias to increase .info price effective October 15, 2007

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Folks,

Let's try to avoid replying to all recipients with "spam" in the subject line. It sort of defeats the purpose of contacting those who are in a position to help us.

Registrars are not monopolies, however registries are monopolies for the respective TLD during the term of their contracts. Significantly lower registration / renewal prices are possible, as evidenced by the competitive rebidding of the .net contract a couple of years ago. 

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: JFC Morfin 
  To: Prophet Partners Inc. ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Cc: John M.R. Kneuer (U.S. Department of Commerce) ; Vint Cerf ; Anick Jesdanun (Associated Press) ; Arik Hesseldahl (BusinessWeek) ; Paul Sloan (Business2.com) ; Scott Ard (c|net) ; Rachel Rosmarin (Forbes) ; Adam Gaffin (NetworkWorld) ; Brian Krebs (Washington Post) ; CNN News Tips ; NY Times News Tips 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [SPAM] [ga] Afilias to increase .info price effective October 15, 2007


  At 18:58 17/04/2007, Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:

    Afilias has notified ICANN of a price increase to $6.15 for new .info registrations and renewals. The price change will coincide with VeriSign's price increase for .com and .net effective October 15, 2007. In our opinion, this looks more like collusion and price fixing, than a competitive free market environment. We believe it is only a matter of time before similar unjustified price increases are announced by PIR for .org and NeuLevel for .biz.
    http://icann.org/correspondence/laplante-to-twomey-13apr07.pdf 

  etc...

  When will people understand that Registrars are monopolies? They own the name that I must rent from them. Competition would be for the same name to be sold at lower rates, this is not possible in the NTIA organised scarcity. Obviously, had we (atlarge) not been divided by ICANN valets, and disserved by Paul Vixie, we could use user keywords or run our own Bind on our own Windows machine. 

  BTW, what does prevent us to do it now? 

  Also, when will they understand that if ICANN and root servers disapeared, nothing special would happen except for those who have picked a poor ISP. (I did not say "root file", that would be the next step). The whole alt-root issue is just for ICANN to make believe a root is needed. This is like the rooster making believe it awakes the sun. Or the map printer who believes he owns the country.

  Let be clear, the only interest in the ICANN/RSSAC/Registrars, etc. stuff is to make sure that my name is unique. If it actually makes sure that the name I want is under tasting, why would I bother about it? 

  The only think which really counted until now was the IP address. It seems that multi-layer addresses could eventually free us from most of that silly constraint. 

  jfcm