Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
pedro |
Date/Time: |
Mon, October 23, 2000 at 4:49 AM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
I disagree |
Message: |
|
I strongly disagree for the following reasons: 1. Abacus proposes
auctions ONLY for the short 1 mo. initial period of subscriptions, thus applying
the most reliable, efficient and fair way for people to compete for limited resources.
Every other method of lists, schedules, pre-registrations, "one name per person"
etc. is flawed. 2. Abacus cuts off the cybersqatters. The most sought after names
will end up on auction anyhow, being auctioned by cybersquatters. Cybersquatters
register thousands of names and put them on auction, hoping that few will sell for
huge profit. Cybersquating is negative for the Internet since many domains end up
reserved by cybersquaters and non available to the public. 3. Auctions are a legal
way of conducting business, recognized even by respected companies like Sun Microsystems,
who offered their latest servers on trough auctions. 4. It best serves the society.
Well capitalized companies are a better choice for consumers, since they have more
resources to provide quality goods/services. In other words if three companies
with the name "apple" compete for apple.inc it will be best for most of the consumers,
if the most powerful and the wealthiest company gets the name. 5. The system proposed
by Abacus imitates the real life where scarce resources are available to the rich
only. If it is normally accepted that rich companies only can afford a corporate
jet, it should be normally accepted that the richest companies can get a competitive
name. Again this is for the initial 1 month period only. 6. Abacus proposes naming
conventions for .biz thus allowing multiple companies to get their name in different
categories. This will reduce the names on auction. It can be adopted for the
other domains they propose. As example if popular first names are reserved than several
Smith families can get their names as follows: smith.john.fam
smith.jim.fam smith.roger.fam etc. 7. If your concern is that
Abacus will make unadjusted huge profits you need to consider: a) times are different
now and there are no more "crazy" Internet money chasing very few TLD. There will
be many more TLDs to choose from and it is highly unlikely "good" names to fetch
"crazy" valuations. b) money better go to Abacus to be invested in their Registry
infrastructure for providing quality service, than in the pockets of cybersquatters. c)
I believe that Abacus will be willing to pass some of the auction money to ICANN,
charities etc. if ICANN requests so during the negotiation process. Pedro
|
| |
Message Thread:
- .biz, etc. Application by Abacus America, Inc. Moderator, October 7 @ 10:37 PM (50/100)
- Whatever happenned to the dot shops chrisn, December 16 @ 1:22 PM (0/0)
- ABACUS - Great Concept ak, November 6 @ 12:26 AM (0/0)
- USA families mikes, November 6 @ 12:00 AM (0/0)
- yes to FAM henry, November 5 @ 11:52 PM (0/0)
- .fam andyG, November 5 @ 11:44 PM (0/0)
- Out of 200 proposed TLDs only one is COOL kevinY , November 5 @ 11:29 PM (0/0)
- .cool kevinY , November 5 @ 11:20 PM (0/0)
- Family JamesZ , November 5 @ 11:14 PM (0/0)
- I Agree (.FAM and .XXX) tw, November 5 @ 10:36 PM (0/0)
- Families need .FAM sl, November 5 @ 10:22 PM (0/0)
- support for .COOL tn, November 5 @ 9:29 PM (1/1)
- .COOL great idea AFree , November 5 @ 9:21 PM (1/1)
- This is the only application that can reach profitability within the first month - HOW? griffiths, November 5 @ 6:07 PM (0/0)
- IOD issue useyourhead, November 5 @ 6:47 AM (0/0)
- .cool will just be a fad YankeeFan, November 3 @ 3:31 AM (2/2)
- .XXX a poor idea ipguy, November 3 @ 12:10 AM (0/0)
- Does Pedro work for Abacus? YankeeFan, November 1 @ 8:03 AM (3/8)
- Abacus got it right pedro, November 1 @ 4:26 AM (0/0)
- Yes to .FAM AndrewK , October 31 @ 9:42 PM (0/0)
- Why Abacus for .biz ChrisK , October 31 @ 9:00 PM (0/0)
- About dot .biz and .inc dimitrov@mailcity.com, October 31 @ 7:44 AM (0/0)
- MSNBC.com Pole domainking, October 31 @ 12:38 AM (0/0)
- .COOL domainking, October 30 @ 11:50 PM (0/0)
- Trying to be cool nickl, October 27 @ 10:01 PM (0/0)
- cool jamesh, October 27 @ 7:31 PM (1/1)
- .fam mikeS, October 27 @ 1:06 AM (0/0)
- It is very important for ICANN to be fair to the public alexj, October 26 @ 8:04 PM (0/0)
- To: saynotoabacus useyourhead, October 26 @ 5:44 AM (0/0)
- EXPERIENCE WITH ABACUS, INC. vldiaz, October 26 @ 3:07 AM (0/0)
- Abacus App peniel, October 25 @ 10:54 PM (0/0)
- I like .cool ChrisK , October 25 @ 8:10 PM (0/0)
- Different policies for ".biz" portion Josh Kyle, October 24 @ 6:57 PM (1/1)
- Anyone know who else has it ready to go? useyourhead, October 23 @ 5:58 AM (1/9)
- .xxx MikeS, October 22 @ 10:31 PM (2/2)
- Young people nickl, October 22 @ 1:19 AM (0/0)
- I agree with jandl bizEXISTSalready, October 22 @ 1:05 AM (0/0)
- BID SYSTEM UNFAIR to UNRICH stokdoctor, October 21 @ 10:32 PM (2/2)
- Sorry for the excessive use of exclamation marks. My only intent was to draw your attention to SayNoToAbacus, October 21 @ 12:11 AM (1/1)
- WWW.NAMES4EVER.COM Domainking, October 20 @ 7:35 PM (2/2)
- To saynotoabacus use your head, October 20 @ 6:11 AM (0/0)
- .biz A. Kinney, October 19 @ 4:48 PM (1/1)
- Comments sjk, October 19 @ 7:26 AM (0/0)
- Way to go Abacus! use your head, October 19 @ 6:19 AM (1/4)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Pistoff, October 18 @ 5:45 PM (0/0)
- Abacus is trying to BUY your support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SayNoToAbacus, October 17 @ 9:22 AM (1/1)
- We want to see your application emc2, October 17 @ 3:16 AM (0/0)
- .fam is needed dconder, October 16 @ 9:11 PM (1/10)
- Simply unworkable jandl, October 16 @ 12:41 AM (0/0)
- .BIZ applications korskarn, October 15 @ 4:43 PM (2/4)
- Where is your application? jandl, October 14 @ 7:55 PM (0/0)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy