RE: [DNS] Rationale of .au high price was: [DNS] Cat got your tongue Chris?

RE: [DNS] Rationale of .au high price was: [DNS] Cat got your tongue Chris?

From: Marty Drill - Domain Candy <marty§>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:57:08 +1000
You pay for the cost of the truck as part of the fee. The cost of the truck
is spread across all of the removalists clients. It is factored in, in the
same way all capital expenditure is factored in to the retail price of a
product, from removals to petrol to houses and beet.

If in the case of domain names, you were paying for the registry (the truck)
then the cost of the domain name would be unthinkable.

It is bazaar to suggest that a company cannot recoup its capital expenditure
in some way. This is capitalism, somebody pays for the truck and the

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Pay [mailto:jasonpay&#167;] 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 May 2004 2:44 PM
To: dns&#167;
Subject: Re: [DNS] Rationale of .au high price was: [DNS] Cat got your
tongue Chris?

There is a difference between running costs and costs of entry.

If I move house, I don't want to pay for the truck, only the costs
associated with the moving itself and relating to the usage of the truck for
the duration of the move.

Jason Pay

Kim Davies <kim&#167;>
18/05/2004 02:32 PM
Please respond to


Re: [DNS] Rationale of .au high price was: [DNS] Cat got your tongue 

Quoting Jason Pay on Tuesday May 18, 2004:
| Not costs of running/operating, cost of entry into the market - setup 
| costs.

Sorry, that is what I meant. My point stands - how can you expect any
company to do anything if they can't expect to recoup their costs? How
exactly is AusRegistry supposed to pay their bills if they can't do so
through making money? You expect registries to run at a loss?

I just don't understand. Do you propose only companies that prove they
do not fund capital expenditure and other startup costs through their
income be allowed to run the registry? How would that work? Why would
you want that?

Everything else being equal, companies that already have built systems
and presumably have much of their start-up costs out of the way are
already advantaged because they can simply undercut bids from companies
that are starting from scratch. Isn't this incentive enough? Why do you
want to punish start-ups?

I don't know of any single service that is provided where the company
offering a service is not allowed to factor into their business plan
having their start-up costs recouped. Almost by definition, you are
proposing only bankrupt businesses are allowed to bid, or beneficiaries
of some kind of grant.


List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC