Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
||Tue, October 2, 2001 at 11:06 PM GMT
||Microsoft Internet Explorer V6.0 using Windows NT 5.0
||Yes, new.net is too expensive, but...
>>The $35 arguably represents poor value for money
compared with cheaper domains which are accessible to all, although there is of course
the advantage of a lot more possible names available.|
Very true. But my point
isn't debating the merits of their pricing structure. I think new.net charges
way too much, yes. At the same time, unlike a lot of other companies who've
went belly up in the last year or so, I think new.net is probably going to be in
business years from now because they actually charge enough to stay in business.
New.net is no more benevolent than Afilias or Neulevel. They're all interested
in what is best for themselves, yes. That is business. They also have
a rediculous number of new domains, I think it is excessive. But I'd rather
see too many than not enough.
My main point is that ICANN claimed to be "filtering"
the proposals to allow only the best and most feasible ones, and after years of debate
only brought us one new general-purpose domain, .info, which filled up immediately,
via preregistrations and fraud, in a process that was very unfair. How difficult
is it really to allow New.net, or someone like them, into the A root? And how
could that go any worse than .info did?
After all of ICANN's self-important hype
about being the benevolent guardian of the internet with the public's best interest
in mind, I just expected better, that's all. I'm not saying new.net is the
answer, but I think they run a professional site with a solid system, and are responding
to demand, rather than holding endless meetings debating about when to have the next