Price or value?
The two are not mutually dependent upon one another in a consistent manner.
Whydna is arguing that price and value are proportional to each other, or in other words as the price of registration goes up, so does the overall perceived value back to the internet community(?).
This is a fundamentally flawed argument from a statistics point of view (in addition to any other softer and/or emotional issues).
The price of a domain registration is in fact disproportional to the overall value of internet contributions, or in other words as the price of registration goes up, the overall user experience for the internet goes down.
Why? Simple: of all the people who can afford to register domains at a higher price, it is the people deriving incomes from some sort of activity that supports the registration fees, who can continue to operate.
So all of a sudden every blog and family site that does not have advertising or products to sell, decides not to bother, therefore reducing the overall quality as the price of domain name registration increases. The higher the price, the more people (who are unadvertised contributors to the online world) would disappear.
The barriers to entry hit hardest for the people with low income. Whydna is implying therefore, that low income earners should not be able to have a voice on the internet (unless they team up with a big conglomerate and trade individuality for ads and affiliate links).
It is the domaining industry at large that is helping keep the price of domains at a reasonable level, and therefore affording a wider audience of participation and a lower cost to all domain name owners (business, family, social whatever).
Without parked pages and registrations, domain names would indeed be a higher price; but there would be far less contributions from early developers, social sites, family sites as a result of the higher price (this is indisputable â ask your family members if they would keep their site for 50-500 bucks a year â even if I can afford it, I would get plenty of pressure to disband any sites built simply for information or aesthetics, yet be encouraged to keep those that derive income).
In Summary:
1. More names, more jobs, more money, better economy, higher standard of living, more people who can have their âownâ piece of the internet
2. Names that earn income keep the cost affordable for the sites that make no money, but are happy to pay 10 bucks a year to write their story.
3. More affordable names means more ideas and information available, less error pages
4. More affordable names means more business online
5. There is no shortage of great names at great prices (including at registration fee)
6. More business online, means more distributed wealth and more contribution to the local communities
7. Parked pages = income to someone = someone using them for a beneficial purpose, otherwise why would they exist? They are simply development projects in waiting.
âtwo people gaze out of a window, one sees stars and the other sees barsâ
We may win arguments everyday, but it is unlikely we will ever change peopleâs opinions in a profound way.
The active business of domaining sparks interest and attention in the commercialization of internet activities. Ignoring the moral and ethical judgements that are within each personâs control, activity and excitement breeds more activity and excitement (from all forms of contribution).
People like and indeed crave feeling engaged and enthusiastic about the opportunities they undertake each day (apart from the few who suffer from irreversible negativity and pessimism).
Each and every person is entitled to their view â you included.
As an experiment of social interactivity (or self promotion) I am sure you are feeling quite pleased with yourself in a Machiavellian way. Itâs sort of like poking a bee hive with a short stick to see what really happens.
op2:
