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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped


> At 09:49 PM 08.8.2006 '?.'  -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
> >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.
>
> Success has many fathers, failure - only one, as we say in Bulgaria.
> So, you are no exception from the rule. But I think you have
> fundamental errors in your statement. And I am sure you can find them
easily.

Is that a a quote that began in Bulgaria or did you adopt it? Just
wondering.

>
> >It's unclear one can even make any
> >difference as part of the Board -- Michael Palage saw better
> >possibilities outside of it.
>
> I can't speak for Mike, and I am wondering what gives you the right
> to speak on his behalf? Why not consider other possibilities for his
> desire to leave? Oh, yes,  I know why - because they will not suit
> your purpose.
>
> >Even Esther Dyson, a past president of ICANN, distanced herself from
> >its failures:
>
> And again, quoting a sentence out of the context, and esp. from these
> two sources, is not a good way to make a point. If you want to make a
> point, either read the whole article, or find alternative sources.
> Your quotes lead to a conclusion that you are reading only one
> newspaper, and trust all written there?

He is stating his opinion. You are taking the time to answer the off-topic
stuff while losing focus on the actual topic. Just trying to be helpful
here. He is responding to the fact that everytime someone disagrees with
you, your answer is to tell them to run for the board. If your greatest
accomplishmnet was "running for the board" and you have no aspirations to
actually accomplish something while sitting on the board then there is the
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!"

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 and that if anyone wants something different than you are offering
then the only recourse is to run for the board yourselves because I am not
going to change anything.

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. That would "encourage" input from the community. You seem more
willing to discourage it. Which puts you in good company among many formaer
ICANN board members. So much for change.


>
> >pro-competitive. I wrote that in my prior message to you, which you're
> >replying to, but which you've conveniently failed to address:
>
> Oh, not, I am not failing. There are two options: a) I am busy, or b)
> I haven't read it.

A. You weren't too busy to write this post. B) You have now, so will you
answer or would option C) be I'm not willing to answer?

>
> >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. But I understand you wouldn't want to have an
opinion other board members wouldn't like. And no I didn't find that your
blog had anything more substantive on these issues.

>
> >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.

Why is it the wrong question? If they said price caps were pro-competition
and then their actions via the contract lift those same price restrictions,
cannot one assume they do not wish to be pro-competition? Just an opinion
Veni, not an official public statement. No one asked you to sign an
affadavit. We asked you to be a human being and have an honest opinion so
real discussion can take place.

>
> > > 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.
>
> Oh, you mean I am not talking to you, and I haven't seen you. It's
> quite easy to say that. And quite wrong, in its foundations.

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. I am someone who is in the know when it comes to
what people want from domain names and when I make suggestions that are
relevant to their needs, I would expect an ICANN Board member might actually
answer those questions instead of dancing around them.

>
> >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:
>
> 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.

>
> >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.
>
> >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.
>
> Why are you pretending you don't understand? Is it because you want
> just to make your point, and you hope that people would not read my
> earlier posting? It becomes like a game - I write, you make your
> points with "intepreting" what I said. Read again what I said. Than
> change your statements accordingly.

I'm reading your statement in this email. And you do seem to be arguing that
price doesn't matter. Maybe if you clarified it and rewrote your comments
above we would understand that you know price does matter to consumers. And
if that is your opinion, then price controls again seem the best option.

>
> >Folks will drive across town to save on
> >gasoline or other expenses.
>
> Oh, really? Let's see now your logic.
> Folks will do that? They will spend 4 hours driving, spending so much
> gas as to cut the savings from buying the cheaper one. Folks may do
> that. But if they do that all the time, why have gas stations with
> higher prices? Why your local Deli sells the Diet Pepsi at $ 2 / 2 L.
> bottle, and the bigger shops sell it at $ 1.40. Yet, they both are
> existing, and making money. Are you an economist? Or psychologist?
> Have you professionally studied markets and customers' behaviour?

On the web, yes. I have. Some people will pay higher prices. By your logic
since some will pay higher prices then we should not worry about the fact
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? In your example it is the equivalent of coca-cola, pepsi, and
the other softdrink manufacturers all raised their price. Then it would cost
more at all of the stores. However even then, customers could buy juice,
milk, etc. In domain names we don't have other alternatives.


>
> >Folks will change registrars to save money.
>
> I've seen folks changin gas stations and shops to save time. From
> what you say, you talk abou the folks, who have time, but not have
> money. And, as we see from my examples above, there are also people
> who save time, and are willing to spend some more money for that.
>
>
> > > 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.

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. Please just decide and be clear. 90% orf your comments to
the list are about how everyone has misunderstood what you are saying. If
90% of the people you are talking to are misunderstanding you, then is it
your words that are misleading or just that everyone else has a hearing
problem?

You seem more worried that anyone might think you actually said anything
than you are about actually saying anything or doing anything. But I do take
into account your statement about being a lawyer and it begins to make some
sense.

>
> >You've got be kidding. This is demonstrative of how out of touch with
> >reality you truly are.
>
> No, what you say just demonstrates that I am not part of your
> "reality". Perhaps Isaak Asimov's books can help you there.
>
> >I'm on the side of registrants who *DON'T* want
> >to change their domain names.
>
> So, why should they?

I'll type this slow. If there are no price restrictions, then there "could"
come a time when a registry finds a way to charge exhorbitant fees for their
domain name renewals. If it "could" happen, then it is proper to discuss
eliminating that possibility by simple changes to the contract. Why is there
such resistance to changes that include price restrictions if nobody intends
on raising the prices in that way anyway?

>
> >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.
>
> I think you should be looking more positively on life in general, and
> on my postings in particular. That may help you get away from your
> obsession about the ICANN Board, with people who have lost connection
> with reality, etc... You sound like an evil fairytale.
>
> >
> > > >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?
> >
> >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
>
> Oh, I see... Then ICANN has raised the price to $ 6 again,
> immediately, and that had no effect on the end-users prices... I see
> what you mean - if that's what you meant?
>
> >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.
>
> So, you are still not responding to what I asked. If what you say is
> correct, then Network Solutions would have stopped to exist. Why are
> they still chargin $ 35. Why is Tucows charging more than GoDaddy?
> How could they actually live?
>
> >You and I obviously have different agendas. I'm for the consumer,
> >fighting to protect them from monopolist registries. What are you
> >fighting for?
>
> You live in a world where people fight. I live in a world where
> people cooperate for the public benefit. That explains why you are
> misinterpreting my words, too. Because you want to adjust them to
> your world. :-)

No, in the real world there are times where you need to fight for your
rights Veni. The utopia you just described does not exist unfortunately.
Speaking of fairy tales.

>
> >increases, were you thinking of the consumers who would be paying those
> >higher prices?
>
> What I was thinking is well reflected in the minutes from the
> meetings. Actually that's one thing that the Board does now, too -
> 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?

Hmmm. okay, let me.

1. Are price restrictions pro-competition?

2. If yes to the above, why exclude price caps from the contracts?

3. Again if yes to number 1, why is there such resistance to editing the
contract to insure that competition?

4. If no to number 1, can you explain how price restrictions are
anti-competitive? Can you give examples?


>
> 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
>
>