>In many instances the principle first come, first served is logical.Agree
>But
it is not always the best principle.
Agree
>When allocating domain names under
the new gTLDs there is going to be an avalanche of applications.
Agree - we are
getting on famously, aren't we?
>I apply for "business.tld" and you do the same.
I
will not be - but for sake of argument OK
>I get it, because I am nano second faster,
or because I have a faster connection or switch than you do. These factors do not
have anything to do with fastness, but all to do with randomness.
You are being
silly now, talking about ping rate. The time one person beats another will very very
VERY unlikely to be decided by 100th of a second.
>I must confess that to allocate
something by random, also can be the fairest principle under certain circumstances,
but that does not apply to domain names.
As shown, randomness does not come into
it - a stupid argument.
>Secondly, why is it so that it is fairer to give the fastest
man around the best domain name and not the richest man? I would not so much focus
on who is the richest, but who is wiling to invest most money on a specific domain
name. The one who is willing to pay the highest rent on Main Street will also most
often be the one that can generate most out of that specific property. The same applies
for domain names.
Thank you for making my point for me - when you rent a shop on
ANY street a fixed price is asked.
The richest man getting it - immediately puts
the poor man *out of the running*. Very unjust. First come - first served, gives
BOTH the SAME exact FAIR chance.
Your argument of the rich man 'also most often
be the one that can generate most out of that specific property'. Not only has he
the advantage of more resources, he also has a better name. Why not allow the chance
of second advantage going to the small businessman? Your way - the rich get richer
and the poor do not get a look in.
>Further an auction model will of course price
some domains higher than the mere registration fee. But so does the secondary market.
Both under an auction model and in a secondary market, the “richest man” will eventually
end up with the domain of his desire. What we are discussing here is whether it is
the Internet Community or the fastest man who shall be able to harvest the value
of a domain name.
NO - what we are talking about is - should ICANN put good names
OUT OF REACH from the AVERAGE PERSON in the PRIMARY MARKET.
>In my opinion the
answer to this will depend upon whether the domain name in question is a generic
name or a coined name. In my opinion the holder of e.g. “boo.com” should be able
to harvest the reward of the domain name they have coined and created a market value
for.
>"Business.com" on the other hand is valuable because it is a generic English
term. The holder of that domain did neither coin the word nor create market recognition
for it. In my opinion the value of such a term should be used to finance ICANN and
any exceeds to charity to be distributed by e.g. UN. Most countries distribute parts
of the income of legal lottery services to charity. Profits from the auction could
be distributed on the same model.
So you would allow ICANN to manage your favourite
charity. YOU FOOL :-) With all this mismanagement, procrastination, wasted opportunity,
meetings, bureaucracy etc... you are giving them licence to waste money. There would
be nothing much left! Vested interest and anger declared.
>Lastly, I will remind
the fact that we are here talking of using an auction model on a limited amount of
gTLDs. The existing gTLDs and other new gTLDs will still be available for whoever
is fast enough and lucky enough to grab them.
I say it is unfair to preclude anyone
in the PRIMARY MARKET. Least of all the small business.
>With regard to seeing
all the angels of a case, I find your view on ICANN pretty one-dimensional and your
way of arguing is more like a Picasso painting than multi angular.
Do you mean
a work of art? ;-) I try to look at all aspects and pride myself on my logical abilities.
FIRST
COME - FIRST SERVED is a more impartial way of distribution. No fair-minded person
would say otherwise ;-)
Do you say - allowing the rich to buy the best in the primary
market, is impartial and fair? I think not.