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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good point. Currently they want their cake and eat it too. They want to be
involved in restraint of free trade by the process they use to approve who
can run a tld and then want to say they shouldn't regulate elsewhere.

Pretty much looks like ICANN BoD members have a hard time deciding who and
what ICANN is or represents.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>; "icann board address"
<icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>; <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>; "james tierney"
<james.tierney@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped


> George and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> stakeholders/users,
>
>   From the back and forth dialoge/litigation on line here, it seems fairly
> obvious that Mr. Neuman is obviscating intentionally.  Given neustar
> history in bad behavior as a registry and ICANN's errant awarding
> of .BIZ in the first place, it is difficult to be trusting of this sort of
> process or any of it's players by stakeholders/users/registrants.
>
> However:
>
>   Although I and our members are against arbitrary price controls, it
> is obvious that with Domain name registration contracts such is needed
> in order to insure healthy competition unless or until restriction of the
> introduction of new tld's and new registrars is also at the same time,
> lifted.  So if ICANN really wants to get out of the pricing business,
> it should also get out of the determining what and whom is able to
> run a registry.
>
> George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > 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/
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/414 - Release Date: 8/9/06
>
>