RE: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff,

--- "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My point in the full e-mail I sent out (which you only copied a
> snippet
> of in this one) is that we are constrained in the current market
> place

"current marketplace"? So, you admit, maybe sometime in the future,
i.e. "not current", those constraint won't exist, and you want to be
able to jack up the fees then. Gotcha.

> because 1 registry operator controls 85% of the market and
> effectively
> sets the price for the unsponsored gTLD market.  If we were to charge
> significantly more for a .BIZ domain name as you insinuated with your
> example (which you also deleted from your response to me), we believe
> people would choose not to register or renew .BIZ domain names.

If you believe this so strongly, you would have no problems agreeing to
identical caps, or removing from yourself the temptation to do what you
say you would never be able to do by editing the contract.

> In our conversations and negotiations with ICANN staff over the last
> several years, it was our understanding that ICANN wanted to get out
> of
> the price regulation business and let the market determine pricing. 

So, if the market says that it could bear the cost of sex.biz being
renewed for $100,000/yr, music.biz being $50,000 per year, you would
let the market determine it? Do I have that right?

If we all believe so strongly in the market, why not let the market
determine the cost of registry services via a rebid every 5 to 10
years, with a fixed price  during the tenure of that contract?
Certainly you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you, to allow
the market to determine that the fair price for .biz names be $2/yr?
You'll allow "the market" to set the price to someone else, but not to
yourself -- do I have that right?

> price for gTLD domain names.  That said, we fail to see why any
> specific
> or arbitrary price caps would be needed for .BIZ which has such a
> small
> market share.  

Thank you. You answered my prior question, that you DO place a value on
not having the caps (unlike what you stated in the prior email), and
are fighting tooth and nail to keep no restrictions on the ability to
exert pricing power.
 
> P.S. In the future, please do not copy people outside of the GA list
> on
> your e-mails.  Particularly if you are only going to copy a snippet
> of a
> prior e-mail thereby eliminating all of the context in which the
> previous statement was made.  It can be misleading to do so.

I copied the emails to folks who are entirely relevant, and all the
conversations are on the public record on the archived GA list on the
web. While "it can be misleading", you obviously did not say "it was
misleading". I only show snippets in order to prevent these emails from
being 150+ pages long, like the draft contracts which are stealthily
submitted for public comments during August vacations when very few
people are paying attention to ICANN, nor have the inclination to
spending their time reading reams of legal mumbo jumbo.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/