Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog

 
It's not the same thing because it's still a monopoly, so the 
distinction between "rent" and "service fee" is one of 
semantics. Since only your registry can provide the resolution service, 
there's no competition. Under your scheme someone can register a name, but 
if they don't pay the maintenance (to you, the only supplier of resolution 
services) the domain is in stasis and unusable but still belongs to the owner. 
This is a speculator's dream scenario but does nothing to address the 
monopoly issue.
 
What I want is for domains to be portable so someone owning a domain can shop 
for a resolution provider in a competitive field. This can't be solved by a 
single new registry, but by a core rethinking of how domains are resolved. 
 

 You argue that high prices are good - my wife makes the same argument about 
air travel.

 
It's not the same argument, you're either not understanding or 
deliberately misinterpreting.
 
There's no speculative aftermarket for air tickets, in part because 
airlines already engage in highly dynamic pricing so to extract maximum value 
for each seat. 
 
This isn't about making domain name space "pleasant". It's 
about dis-incentavizing speculation and properly resourcing ICANN.
 
The closest non-tech analogy to domain speculation is concert ticket scalping. 
Like there, the "added value" of the speculator is either gaming the 
distribution system through insider knowledge and/or being in then queue first. 
In that respect, speculation extracts value from the market rather that adding 
value. Ticket scalping is generally despised by everyone except the scalpers 
(and their agents) and is illegal in a number of jurisdictions.
 
Increasingly, artists or venues are inflating the original pricing of events so 
to deter speculators and increase their risk. Removing the price caps on 
domains performs the same function, enabling the original vendor to address 
market demand rather than leave it in the hands of an aftermarket. 
 
What is generally lost in such discussions that domain name rental -- even at 
the current "taxed" rate -- is a minuscule component of the total 
cost of maintaining an Internet presence (hosting, programming, content, 
promotion). So most people don't complain. 
 

With regard to stakeholderism - I said nothing about representative vs direct 
democracy. I merely said that the locus of resolving conflicts between 
interests should be vested in each individual human being and nowhere else. 
Whether those humans express their opinions directly on propositions or act 
through elected representatives does not affect my argument that 
"stakeholderism" is a form of Gerrymandering. 

 
The analogy is pointless, because one can identify in multiple interest groups. 
Gerrymandering insists on a single arbitrary silo for every individual.
 

(By-the-way, you argue that most people do not have the skills or time to deal 
with issues that affect them. To some degree one can't argue against that. 
However, I just finished watching a debate between US presidential candidates - 
they were clearly working hard to attract the votes of individual people. So I 
am a bit skeptical of the notion that people can not decide what is best for 
themselves, that democracy can't work, that they must [or will] be 
protected by a paternalist system formed by those who have "stake" - 
usually a significant financial interest - in outcomes.

 
That's quite a strawman you've built there. Unfortunately it's not 
what I'm advancing, indeed much the opposite. Please re-read.
 
 
--  
Evan Leibovitch,Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch or@el56