Hey. You guys are hijacking my renamed thread ;-).
The reason I changed the name was to try and get to a different point
and, for the record, I absolutely agree that both this and WLS are
abuses of the registry monopoly. I wanted to make the point that the
industry structure has mutated significantly due to
regulatory/structural inefficiency. Thus we see today many (perhaps
most) accreditations used for something NEVER contemplated at the time
competition was introduced.
A wise person once said (and I could not reproduce the exact quote
therefore could not attribute it properly) "nature does not move towards
goals, it routes around obstacles". By the way the Internet is much like
nature in this regard.
Again, for the three reasons I mentioned we have the function of
"registrar" being used for something, IMHO, it should not.
Regards
George Kirikos wrote:
>Hi Robert,
>
>--- Robert L Mathews <lists@tigertech.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If they had to pay the registry fee that everyone else paid, I can
>>almost
>>guarantee they wouldn't be considering it, certainly not on this
>>scale.
>>
>>
>
>Even further, whoever is trafficking in the typos should be paying the
>registry fee, and it can't be Verisign itself (i.e., if they pay the $6
>to themselves, that's not really a deterrent, although they'd still
>have to pay ICANN their share for each domain). Furthermore, they'd
>need to be subject to UDRP.
>
>Class action lawsuits, just like the Register.com one where they were
>monetizing based on the default nameservers that was recently settled,
>would result, as they'd be typo-squatting on EVERYONE'S domains (i.e.
>add a random string to your domain, or remove/transpose a few
>characters, and they'd be using it).
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:47 EDT