[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Bad idea - flawed economics
Stephen Beitzel
sbeitzel at pobox.com
Wed Feb 12 16:29:44 UTC 2020
Of course a limited resource will be more expensive than one that is
less so. And, of course, the price will ultimately fluctuate with
demand. And, the cost of producing the resource will be factored into
the total cost.
All this said, however, I'd like to see the justification for the
proposed change. How is it that the cost of maintaining a database of
unique strings is suddenly going to spike over the next few years? It
seems pretty unlikely.
How is it in the public interest to make the .com namespace more
expensive? There's no way the price increase will impact the bottom line
of large or even medium commercial enterprises. Even if the yearly cost
of a domain increases 100% overnight, that won't even register on the
balance sheet for, say, Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, or Wells Fargo. The
only people who will notice this are those on the margins. This will
shut down the voices of those who can just barely afford to participate.
This seems like a play to grab a bunch of cash while screwing over the
people who have the least power.
If Verisign needs the money that badly, then we should be paying a lot
more attention to their situation. Maybe they need help -- help that
might look like lightening their responsibilities, or overseeing their
finances.
Don't do this. It's not good for anyone who isn't Verisign.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pEpkey.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 35179 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20/attachments/20200212/9fb0ad9a/pEpkey.asc>
More information about the Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20
mailing list