Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
mayor |
Date/Time: |
Wed, November 1, 2000 at 6:02 AM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
The internet should be a utility |
Message: |
|
As far as I'm concerned, the internet is a public utility and margins should go down
to a basic return on investment for any company that wants to work in the utility
space.That said, price should be minimal, as with any public utility. The
CEO of Cisco says a phone call will cost zero within five years. The same should
be true for internet usage, which includes domain name assignments as well as online
access. Margins for registries should be thin, ensuring a low price for retail
domain name sales. Any company on this list that thinks there should be an $XYZ
hundred-odd dollar fee for a domain name registration is missing the whole point
of this process. The dot-whatever Consortiums, which seem oddly similar and strike
me as being written by the same author, seem to get the point with their proffered
price point of $3.50, and that gives me some reassurance. I hope ICANN doesn't
postpone the inevitable and decides to drive this whole scenario where it is already
ordained to end up: in cheap, widespread access- not in some company's coffers who
managed to insert itself between user and cyberspace.
|
| |
Message Thread:
- .nom Application by the dotNOM Consortium Moderator, October 7 @ 10:11 PM (32/69)
- End price Hastings, November 6 @ 12:04 AM (1/8)
- Legal responcibility? Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 10:57 PM (0/0)
- global focus Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 10:53 PM (0/0)
- Unclear financial costs and structure griffiths, November 5 @ 9:56 PM (2/2)
- separation of commercial and pesonal domains Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 9:13 PM (1/2)
- Accounting discrepancies hunter, November 5 @ 4:09 AM (1/1)
- Clarification of financial information Hunter, November 4 @ 9:55 AM (0/0)
- Multiple people with the same name Hunter, November 4 @ 9:46 AM (1/1)
- .NOM sounds too much like .COM julie, November 4 @ 4:14 AM (1/3)
- tech view of .nom techchick, November 4 @ 2:54 AM (0/0)
- .nom- CORE or dotnom consortium? Ted Hanks, November 4 @ 2:46 AM (0/0)
- dotNOM Consortium Walter Bergfeld, November 4 @ 12:29 AM (0/0)
- .nom alireza, November 3 @ 9:04 PM (1/1)
- .NOM can be great alireza, November 3 @ 8:57 PM (0/0)
- Same problem... PHXbird, November 3 @ 5:50 PM (1/2)
- .nom jedrink24, November 3 @ 5:34 PM (1/2)
- I agree with Jim Chen on .nom BionicBro, November 3 @ 2:45 AM (0/0)
- dot whatever PinkFish, November 3 @ 2:20 AM (1/3)
- demand for .nom Jim Chen, November 2 @ 8:53 PM (0/0)
- .NOM makes great sense DRrandy, November 2 @ 5:56 AM (0/0)
- dotNOM Jer072, November 2 @ 2:33 AM (1/1)
- .nom proposal is an excellent idea tiger74, November 2 @ 1:56 AM (0/0)
- .nom consortium wayanna, November 2 @ 1:47 AM (0/0)
- .nom consortium lindaw, November 2 @ 1:01 AM (0/0)
- wholesale price UV, October 30 @ 5:50 PM (2/8)
- Excellent Proposal cbuck@usc.edu, October 27 @ 7:04 PM (0/0)
- Confusion about .TV’s finances Hunter, October 27 @ 4:18 AM (0/0)
- How does the applicant propose handling multiple people with the same name? hunter, October 27 @ 3:42 AM (1/1)
- .nom vs .com/.net for individuals stvtron, October 26 @ 11:59 PM (0/0)
- .nom proposal looks good dc, October 26 @ 11:39 PM (1/2)
- .nom, .pro nschlegel, October 25 @ 3:48 PM (0/0)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:25 PM (0/0)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy