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

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 21:38 18/04/2007, Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, but my anti-spam use to take the GA as spam, no idea why :-)

> 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.

I am afraid, Ted, you missed the point and follow the ICANN community 
correct thinking. Registries are the trustees of their communities, 
except gTLDs which are only money making machine with no added value 
for the global community unless they are really easier and cheaper than ccTLDs.

So, my registry is someone I can build relations of trust with (or 
legally binding for ccTLDs). A Registrar is a service which takes a 
defacto control (monopoloy) on the name I own and I invest on. 
Registrars are an invention of ICANN with NO network added value, 
except to permit ICANN to survive in being an artificial protection 
of ICANN against Registries "nuclear arsenal". Without Registrars 
there would be no ICANN for a long. All this is a very well construed 
complexity (a fense in our current world). When ICANN was started it 
was started by old world people who developed a legal complexity. It 
was boring to manage and gave the power to Touton and Sim. Twomey is 
far better: he has built an incredible relational complexity, making 
the ICANN community a stronghold of the virtual world, giving alibi 
for meetings, travelings, personal networking, etc.

Now what is the resulting added value that ICANN brings to the global 
internet community that is worth 1% of their budget and of their 
staff? I frankly have no idea. This might be time to seriously 
consider changing this.

jfc


> Sincerely,
> Ted
> Prophet Partners Inc.
> <http://www.ProphetPartners.com>http://www.ProphetPartners.com
> http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mailto:jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>JFC Morfin
> To: <mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Prophet Partners Inc. ; 
> <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: <mailto:jkneuer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>John M.R. Kneuer (U.S. Department 
> of Commerce) ; <mailto:vint@xxxxxxxxxx>Vint Cerf ; 
> <mailto:netwriter@xxxxxx>Anick Jesdanun (Associated Press) ; 
> <mailto:Arik_Hesseldahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Arik Hesseldahl 
> (BusinessWeek) ; <mailto:psloan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Paul Sloan 
> (Business2.com) ; <mailto:sard@xxxxxxxx>Scott Ard (c|net) ; 
> <mailto:rrosmarin@xxxxxxxxxx>Rachel Rosmarin (Forbes) ; 
> <mailto:agaffin@xxxxxxx>Adam Gaffin (NetworkWorld) ; 
> <mailto:brian.krebs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Brian Krebs (Washington Post) 
> ; <mailto:ireport@xxxxxxx>CNN News Tips ; 
> <mailto:news-tips@xxxxxxxxxxx>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>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