Re: An observation

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 4:26 PM -0800 12/30/96, Bryant Durrell wrote:

> Simon Higgs writes:
> > The first, and most important thing NSI did to develop .COM as a brand
> > was to place a higher perceived value on each domain than it's annual
> > fee. They did this by charging $100 for registration. They could have
> > charged $50.00, and just had each domain renewed every year, but they
> > didn't. They made the cost of entry a higher value than the per year
> > cost for each SLD. Anything that costs something has to be worth
> > something in the eyes of the consumer, or they will never buy into it
> > in the first place. Since that time the .COM space has been plagued by
> > name horders and speculators.
>
> Huh?
>

Duh? ;)

> Speaking as someone who used to handle half the new domain
> registrations at Netcom, I'd say that the horders and speculators were
> out in force well before NSI started charging.  Clearly the number has
> increased, but then again, so has the number of spammers and that
> didn't have anything to do with the .COM fees.  Further, there
> hasn't been any notable increase in the number of people speculating
> in .ORG, and that costs too.
>
> I think, with all due respect, that your analysis is a bit off.
>

The growth curve supports this. It's not the only factor, but it is the
significant one. If the registrations were still free, there wouldn't
be venture funds being assigned to name speculation, and there would
not be a need to compete with NSI for registration services, etc. The
list goes on, but this is the pivotal point in recent domain name
history.

Why aren't .US and .EDU domains being speculated in the same way?

Regards,

Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.