[LINK] Why should it cost so much that only companies or richpeople can afford it?

[Richard Chirgwin]

On 24/06/11 5:38 PM, Tom Koltai wrote:
> I'm having a problem finding fault with the logic or commercial concept
> of 185K TLD's.
>
> How is this dedicated TLD business model any different than referring a
> legal case to Counsel by an Attorney, an orthodontist by a Dentist and a
> ____ogist (medical specialist) by a GP ?
>
> If it's just the proletariat having a whinge at the moneyed fascistic
> Capitalist elitists, then I completely understand.
>
> The advantages in decreasing the value of currently "camped but no
> entitlement too" domain name "business model" extortion that currently
> passes as an honourable business is evident.
>
> The actual disadvantages to the man in the street ?
Brand-name camping. It's quite feasible for "the little guy" to own a 
brand that a large company decides it wants.

The small brand might be a business that's quite happily providing 
income for someone, maybe employing a few people, and not As Important 
as Microsoft or Apple or whatever. That income could easily be squashed. 
So no, it's not just some prole thing.

The only protection available to a brand is to be the first to fork out 
$185 grand: a pissworth-percentage-of-nothing for the people targeted by 
this, or an entire year's income for a small business.

RC
> I can't actually think of any.
> The old domain names will still be routed.
> And of course, routing preferences and BGP will become a lot easier to
> manage.
>
> Of course the old model where mom and pop Web sites operated out of the
> barn at the top of the south forty may need to be upgraded slightly
> because it will now be obvious that they aren't a mainstream
> distributor.
>
> Although I do think that, the Internet meme to distrust the big boys
> will actually work against the moneyed oligarchy.
>
> Deny *.bigbrandname  is a very effective spam filter in any home Routing
> filter....
>
>
> TomK
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Steven Clark
>> Sent: Friday, 24 June 2011 4:38 PM
>> To: Richard Chirgwin
>> Cc: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> Subject: Re: [LINK] Why should it cost so much that only
>> companies or richpeople can afford it?
>>
>>
>> They're already going to get a huge snowdrift of applications
>> and counter-claims at this price from corporates and
>> governments. If us mortals could get in the game, they'd have
>> to rethink this whole thing.
>>
>> Oh, did i say that out loud?
>>
>> from Steven via Bandersnatch, a frumious iPad
>>
>> On 18/06/2011, at 1:24 PM, Richard Chirgwin
>> <rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au>  wrote:
>>
>>> Completely outrageous and shameful.
>>>
>>> RC
>>>
>>> On 18/06/11 1:23 PM, Kim Holburn wrote:
>>>> $185,000 - I suppose that's US$ - for a domain name?
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/17/us->
> internet-names-idUSTRE75
>>>> G49W20110617
>>>>
>>>>> (Reuters) - Brand owners will soon be able to operate their own
>>>>> parts of the Web -- such as .apple, .coke or .marlboro -- if the
>>>>> biggest shake-up yet in how Internet domains are awarded is
>>>>> approved.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing list
>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/lin>  k
>>
>