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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If ICANN should not regulate business, then why does ICANN require a
business plan review before approving a business to operate a tld?

I am asking you as a board member to explain the difference in that and your
statement that "Because it's not within ICANN's work to establish prices."
and that ICANN should not regulate business. In that case, then whether or
not a business plan by a tld operator fails or not is not ICANN's concern
since we already have all of those regulatory bodies you mentioned.

I'm trying to figure out how it can be both ways. We are regulating business
here, but we are not going to over there.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped


> At 11:40 AM 09.8.2006 '?.'  -0400, kidsearch wrote:
>
>
> >here. He is responding to the fact that everytime someone disagrees with
> >you, your answer is to tell them to run for the board.
>
> Oh, no, no... Read more carefully when I give such proposals. It has
> nothing to do with someone disagreeng with me. I am not looking for
> your agreement with me. Why would I do so.
>
>
> >problem. Telling others they should run for the board if they are
concerned
> >is sort of saying, "Look at me! I did something! I ran for the board and
got
> >on!"
>
> That's what you think. For me it says something else. This may be
> good for you - thinking about yourself, but talking about me.
>
> >Answering those who question you by saying they should run for the board
is
> >also giving the impression that you can't or are not willing to answer
those
> >questions
>
> I don't and will not respond to questions, which should be addressed
> to other people. Why would I? Because if you think I should, that's
> not good enough for me.
>
> >A responsive board member of any organization might say instead, you make
> >some valid points and I will be sure to bring those issues up at the next
> >opportunity.
>
> A responsive board member, like me, already said, "That's a question
> for the Chairman or the President". I don't need to make a statement
> if this is a valid point, a good question, etc. I am not in the
> position to judge. I just say it's wrong to ask me questions, which
> are obviously not for me.
>
> > > >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.
> >
> >Again asking for your opinion.
>
> Read again what I wrote several times.
>
> >And no I didn't find that your
> >blog had anything more substantive on these issues.
>
> Try the search function. It's not my problem that you can't find it.
>
> >Why is it the wrong question?
>
> Because you are asking the wrong person. How many times did I ask you
> to address ICANN?
>
> >affadavit. We asked you to be a human being and have an honest opinion so
> >real discussion can take place.
>
> Real discussion? Define, please.
>
> >I know they care Veni. I help companies choose their domain names as part
of
> >my living. As a lawyer, your legal opinion counts. In the arena of what
> >customers want from domain names, my opinion is as qualified as your
legal
> >degree is in your practice.
>
> Again wrong asumptions.
>
> > > 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?
> >
> >Yet his point is proven hence the number of domains being registered
through
> >godaddy vs netsol.
>
> Nope. This point proves there are users who want to pay $ 35, and
> users who want to pay $ 8.95. Or $ 12., or whatever is the price. But
> you believe there are only one type of users - the one who want to
> pay $ 6. Fixed. Right?
>
> >that there are higher prices since consumers have a choice. If the
> >registries all raise the price, that choice is eliminated. Do you see the
> >logic here?
>
> I see your logic, and I see also that you are not mentioning the
registrars.
>
> >Several times Veni. You continually state that you see no reason for
price
> >restrictions. Since price restrictions are pro-competitive, what else
could
> >anyone conclude besides that you are not pro-competition? You either are
for
> >pro-competition measures like price caps or you are not actually
> >pro-competition.
>
> I just wonder which one of us has lived 20 years under state-control
> economy (socialism). You or me?
>
> >Please just decide and be clear. 90% orf your comments to
> >the list are about how everyone has misunderstood what you are saying.
>
> Not true. There are only 2-3 people who pretend they mistunderstand
> me. I can't possibly believe you really misunderstand me, so you must
> be pretending.
>
> >If 90% of the people you are talking to are misunderstanding you,
>
> oh, you mean there are only 4 people on this list?
>
>
> >Hmmm. okay, let me.
> >
> >1. Are price restrictions pro-competition?
>
> It depends on the market. At the EU level, on the telecommunications,
> there are certain checks and balances. You may wish to see that. My
> experience, and esp. comparing socliast countries with countries in
> transition, with countries with market economies, shows that the
> market is the only thing that regulates properly prices. That's why
> the prices for domain names are so different. If you want the prices
> for TLDs to be regulated, that means less competition, and for sure
> companies will not be happy about it. Esp, if the restrictions come
> from ICANN. Because it's not within ICANN's work to establish prices.
> If it was, fine.
> On the other hand, when companies offer big prices, there are
> organizations like the FTC ( I believe that's the relevane one in the
> US - one can say there are others, but you get the point, right?),
> which are existing exactly because of that. If you are not happy with
> some price, or service, or something, you go to the Commission for
> Protection of Competition, or the Commission for Protection of
> Customers, and you make a case there.
> There have been examples in many countries, where this works.
>
> Instead, you prefer to address ICANN. ICANN is not the solution to
> your problem. You have to understand some basics things here, but I
> am not in the position to give you free lessons.
>
> Veni
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>