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

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

--- Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >Was ICANN lying to the court that price caps are considered
> >pro-competitve? Or were they telling the truth?
> 
> Again, questions which result in you expecting an ICANN position, 
> should be addressed to the President, or the Chair.

Nice try at not answering. :) If you did answer, it would destroy your
argument, that is why you prefer to pretend you're not allowed to
answer. Either ICANN was telling the truth in court that caps are
pro-competitive, or they were not telling the truth. I'm not asking for
ICANN's position, just your position.
 
> >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.
> 
> Your logic is simple: if I tell Veni he will look weak, he has to
> respond.
> You forget several things: Why do you think I'd be interested in 
> looking strong in your eyes? Why do you thik that my pride will let 
> me forget that these are questions which are not for me? You do not 
> ask Veni Markovski as a lawyer (thanks for searching), but you ask me
> to speak on behalf of ICANN. That will not happen.
> And also, let's not forget that a wrong question leads to a wrong
> answer.

That's because there is no way to wiggle around the question and
explain how ICANN can say in court that caps are pro-competitive, but
then introduce contracts that eliminate caps. Either caps are
pro-competitive, or they are not pro-competitive. ICANN's lawyers have
made a statement in court. You either disagree with that statement, or
you agree with it. It's very simple. Choosing not to answer is an
admission that you simply cannot reconcile ICANN's statements in court
with its actions in these new contracts. You'd prefer to pretend there
is no hypocrisy, by not answering, or saying "someone else has to
answer" (of course that "someone" never appears). You have the ear of
ICANN --- try to get anyone to answer. Just 1 person on the record,
whether ICANN was lying in court that caps are pro-competitive.
 
> Yet,
> >now in 2006, GoDaddy is *twice* the size of Network Solutions,
> measured
> >by the number of registrations:
> 
> Oh, really? And how much do they charge today? In "your" world, why 
> NS is still charging $ 35, and why GoDaddy is chargin $ 8.95 for
> domain?

NSI is still charging $35 because they can get away with it due to
automatic rebilling, unwillingless to lose bundled services
(email/hosting), inertia etc. Your veni.com is registered with NSI. If
you try to transfer your domain to another registrar, watch what
happens -- they will send you offers to lower the price of renewals. :)
Price does matter.
 
> >Customers choose GoDaddy because they offer *value*, through lower
> >price combined with good service.
> 
> Customers choose GoDaddy, and they pay $ 8.95, but they also choose 
> NS for $ 35. It's complitely irelevant for our discussion how many 
> customers choose one or the other.

No it's not irrelevant. It's entirely relevant, because it destroys
your argument. GoDaddy is twice the size of NSI, and started from 0.
They've gained that market share largely due to price. Very few people
actively "choose" NSI -- they're at the default legacy registrar for
historical reasons, and due to things like rebilling, or lack of
technical expertise at moving their domains to other registrars, or not
wanting to lose bundled services like e-mail or webhosting, and often
due to FUD, scare tactics that if they switch from NSI something bad
might happen.

> > > 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?
> 
> Will you be nice enough to point me how did you reach from my words 
> to your conclusions? I somehow don't see the link. And I think it's 
> not on purpose that you've made it on your own.

Sure, I'd be happy to point out how. You wrote "Why not  use the
ccTLDs?" Why else would you say that unless you were offering an
alternative course of action for registrants. You wrote "Do you believe
they will be influenced by price increases?" My answer is YES, they
will be held hostage and be forced to pay more. They won't be
influenced individually to give up their domain, as they've already
established an internet presence. It is proof of the "lock-in" effect
that they're forced to pay more, and can't switch.

You could have said the same thing about drinking water. "If we raised
the price of water at the city water company, will they be influenced?"
Well, they won't stop drinking water! They'll be forced to pay more, as
they have no real alternative. For each consumer, it might be a
relatively small amount each, but in aggregate it amounts to a huge
amount, money that they could spend on other goods and services. We're
talking billions of dollars in aggregate, as has been noted many times
before. If you actually think that those are "minor" figures, send half
of them to me, instead of VeriSign. :)
 
> scripts, minutes, public meetings, etc. The funny thing is that you 
> ask so many questions, and they are all leading. Why, George? Why do 
> you ask leading questions? Why don't you try to ask some more 
> balanced, peaceful questions, which are looking towards the positive 
> sides of life?

haha And you respond by asking a "leading question"!! :) I ask
questions that you can't wiggle out of, that are very direct and
precise. That's why you prefer not to answer them directly, or at all.

I'm not your PR agent, lobbing softball questions that are "peaceful",
to try to make ICANN's actions look positive when they are very
negative. That's for Edelman and other ICANN spin doctors.

"So Veni, due to VeriSign's price increases, at this quarter's ICANN
meeting they've catered a fine dining experience with lobster, caviar
and filet mignon. [It sure beats the chicken McNuggets they threatened
to provide if their pricing proposals didn't get approved.] Did you eat
the lobster, or the filet mignon?"  

Is that the kind of peaceful and positive side of life conversation
that takes place at ICANN private retreats? :)

Sincerely,

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

P.S. Did someone at ICANN suggest that registrants eat cake, while you
were feasting on lobster, caviar and filet mignon?