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

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

--- Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> George,
> Why don't you run for the board, and represent registrants 
> effectively? So far, besides criticts from a couple of people on this
> mailing list, I haven't somehow seen the registrants thinking at all 
> about their being represented at ICANN. At all. There were once 
> elections, which can't happen today (and you are an intelligent 
> person - you can respond to this question on your own).

I have no desire to run for the Board. I can be far more effective on
the outside, neutral and untainted, and not associated with the
continual failures of the Board. It's unclear one can even make any
difference as part of the Board -- Michael Palage saw better
possibilities outside of it.
 
Even Esther Dyson, a past president of ICANN, distanced herself from
its failures:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/06/dyson_cleans_out_her_closet/
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/17/151220&mode=thread

""ICANN is weak and powerless" and "should remain weak and powerless"

> On second reading of your first sentence, you want ICANN to be the 
> FTC, not the FCC. Or, to use even something more close - in Bulgaria,
> it will be the Commission for protection of customers. Another
> regulator.

There's nothing wrong with regulating a monopolist. Indeed, it must be
done, or the monopolist will abuse consumers. Regulation happens
everyday, whether it's the local electric utility, city water
companies, etc. Indeed, ICANN has said in court that doing so is
pro-competitive. I wrote that in my prior message to you, which you're
replying to, but which you've conveniently failed to address:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04302.html
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04204.html

""Nowhere does CFIT address the fact that, at this point in time, all
that ICANN and VeriSign have done is propose future price **limits**
for .COM domain names, which cannot be implemented until the DOC
approves the .COM Extension.  (Mot. at 20-22.)  And, as ICANN explained
in its opening brief, price caps in a single supplier market are
considered pro-competitive.  (Mot. at 13-14.)"  [page 8 of the
document, line 14, page  13 of all 15]

Your ICANN bio says you have legal training:

http://www.icann.org/biog/markovski.htm

Was ICANN lying to the court that price caps are considered
pro-competitve? Or were they telling the truth? If they were telling
the truth, why is ICANN even putting forth for comment proposed
contracts that are anti-competitive, by eliminating all price caps on
.biz/org/info? Try to answer these questions next time, even if they
make you uncomfortable. Ignoring them again just makes you look weak.
 
> >they have won a tender for operation of a registry with very
> specific
> >terms. They want presumptive renewal. They want unlimited pricing
> >power. Those terms were NOT in the original contracts. They are
> gaining
> >something. What, pray tell, are consumers, registrants, and the
> broader
> >group of stakeholders gaining?
> 
> I still don't understand - why do you think the registrants, the 
> normal registrants, who pay today between $ 10 and $ 35 / year, would
> care about what you care? Somehow I don't see this as a concern. I 
> see other items, which you are not covering. Why?

Perhaps because you have your eyes closed,  and are blind to their
concerns? It's hard to see what normal registrants want, when one isn't
talking to them and never sees them. In my world, the real word, I see
a market that *does* respond to price as a very important factor. When
the market was opened to competition, Network Solutions had a 100%
market share initially, at $35/yr for a domain name registration. Yet,
now in 2006, GoDaddy is *twice* the size of Network Solutions, measured
by the number of registrations:

http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pressreleases/08_01_06_GoDaddy_Doubles_Competition.pdf

Customers choose GoDaddy because they offer *value*, through lower
price combined with good service. There are a lot more domains
registered today because of lower prices. Lower prices are repeatedly
cited by ICANN in testimonies before Congress as one of its successes.
Yet, you say price doesn't matter. I'm betting they won't be having you
speak before Congress anytime soon, with that stance.

Now that GoDaddy has decided to pull their IPO

http://www.bobparsons.com/WhyIPOPulled.html

I am sure Bob Parsons will have an opinion as to whether price matters
to consumers (no more "quiet period", sorry ICANN; get ready for the
sleeping giant to awaken). Everyone (except you) knows price is
important to consumers. Folks will drive across town to save on
gasoline or other expenses. Folks will change registrars to save money.
However, they can't save money when *ALL* the registrars face higher
costs from registrars, and have to pass along those price increases.
 
> >the "rules" (i.e. the first rule is that there will be no rules).
> Then,
> >let those who want to register in that TLD do so, via that full
> >disclosure and at their own peril.
> 
> George, why today there are companies that charge more than the $ 6? 
> Will they increase their prices, if VeriSign increased their price, 
> or they will keep the price, and lower their profit? You care about 
> registrants, you say. I do, too. But for the normal registrants, not 
> for the commercial ones. You say you care about registrants, but do 
> you believe they will be influenced by price increase? Or by new 
> TLDs? Why not use the ccTLDs?

Your "solution" is for people who already have established their
presence on the internet is to switch to a different TLD, or a ccTLD?
You've got be kidding. This is demonstrative of how out of touch with
reality you truly are. I'm on the side of registrants who *DON'T* want
to change their domain names. They've invested in them. They don't want
to be held hostage to price increases, with the only solution being
offered is to "love it or leave it". They'd lose page rank, they'd lose
visitors, they'd confuse consumers, they'd risk not protecting their
trademarks and branding, they'd need to spend a huge amount of money to
switch to a different domain and start over from scratch. I truly
wonder what planet you are on when you, as a BOARD member would suggest
they should switch to other TLDs, and abandon their existing domains.
 
> >In the real world, to gain something, you typically have to give up
> >something. That's what a negotiation involves. Yet, what have the
> >registries given up, so that consumers can gain? Nada.
> 
> I still don't understand - the consumers would have gained what? What
> did they gain from the .ORG or .NET bids? Which consumers? The end 
> users like me, who have one domain name to take care of, or the ones 
> that have tens of thousands, or half a million domain names, and make
> money from that? Yes, for them a 7 % increase means $ 210,000 / year.
> For me, if Network Solutions decides, it will mean no change at all -
> they can easily utilize the 42 cents in their own profit. But even if
> it's increased from $ 35 to $ 35.42, that will be about 1.2 % 
> increase. I can handle that, I think. And for people from countries, 
> where $ 35 is a lot (e.g. Bulgaria), and who can't elect the ".bg", 
> because it is $ 180 for the first two years, they will go with .org, 
> or .net, or .com from Tucows, where it's cheaper. Etc., etc.

Prices were bid down in the .net bid, from $6/yr to $4.25/yr. However,
then ICANN erased that "victory", by giving presumptive renewal in .net
and allowing price increases, that were not in the original tender! Ask
the "losers" in the tender process like DENIC whether they thought
there was going to be a regular series of rebids every few years, or
whether they thought their bid would be for permanent control of .net.

For .com, We're talking about going from $6 to $6.42 in year 1, and
more in year 2, and so in. In aggregate it adds up to a huge amount.
Prices would double from $6 to $12 in 10 years, much higher than the
rate of inflation, in an environment where technology costs are
FALLING. Most registrars are not charging $35, because competition has
driven prices a lot closer to $6 than to $35.

You and I obviously have different agendas. I'm for the consumer,
fighting to protect them from monopolist registries. What are you
fighting for? I read an article that VeriSign added a Regional Internet
Resolution Site in Bulgaria of all places:

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=174694

You're from Bulgaria, aren't you? Just out of curiousity, when you were
voting to give VeriSign presumptive renewal and 7% perpetual price
increases, were you thinking of the consumers who would be paying those
higher prices? Or were you thinking that maybe VeriSign would later put
up a site in Bulgaria?? Did you put the interests of Bulgaria ahead of
the interests of all other registrants in .com who have to pay for the
consequences of your vote? 

Sincerely,

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