<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Economists
- To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Economists
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 09:02:08 -0400
Eric:
How many of these names attracting high values were not in .com?
Hmm, by your own stated examples I see....none were.
.Com has market power. There is no debate about that.
<Sigh. How many times do I have to point this out?>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> sex.com went for $14m, fund.com went for pennies under $10m, porn.com
> went for $9.5m, {business and diamonds}.com went for $7.5 each, and
> beer.com went for $7m. AsSeenOnTV.com went for pennies over $5m, and
> {korea, casino and seo}.com went for $5m each.
>
> The price points for each of these for the random standard 2010 (or
> whenever) application going through sunrise and landrush will be lower
> than for .com, but significantly higher than the price point for any
> remaining strings after the first 100k have been harvested by the
> business entity ICANN selects as the registry operator and which has
> this one-time value extraction permit.
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|