Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: einman
Date/Time: Tue, October 2, 2001 at 11:06 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V6.0 using Windows NT 5.0
Subject: Yes, 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 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 is probably going to be in business years from now because they actually charge enough to stay in business. 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, 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 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 debate.



Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy