[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request: discussion of wholesale price for names

[Harold J. Feld]

If there is interest by the consticuency, I will raise it.  Can we have 
some mechanism for taking a vote on this question?  We can get it qued 
up in time for Board consideration for Shanghai if we act.

Harold

Adam Peake wrote:

> People getting agitated, it almost seems as if there's an issue here. 
> Wonder if ICANN should be encouraged to review it's current wholesale 
> price mechanism :-)
> 
> Milton, I do not think it's realistic to expect any significant number 
> of new TLDs anytime soon. And probably no new open TLDs anytime. Period 
> (I am not saying I think this is a good thing.) While I think you might 
> be right about competition generally, I can't see it happening.
> 
> I think a  review would be extremely sensible. It would be hard to do 
> well and would be something of a test for the efficacy reformed 
> organization.  And a review might be fun to watch!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> No, Milton.  He was referring to you.
>>
>> And, as always, thanks for keeping the level of exchange on such a
>> professional level, as usual.
>>
>> d/
>>
>> At 05:25 PM 8/26/2002 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, Harold, when you referred to a "half-way competent
>>> economist" were you thinking of Kent?
>>>
>>>  >>> <kent at songbird.com> 08/26/02 03:27PM >>>
>>> That FTC report, unfortunately, was terribly shallow, and exhibited a
>>> serious lack of understanding of the problem domain.  [blah, blah]
>>>
>>>  > >>> "Harold J. Feld" <hfeld at mediaaccess.org> 08/26/02 01:21PM >>>
>>>  > Any half-way competent economist can tell you the answer (or at 
>>> least,
>>>  > an answer).
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
>> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
>> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
>