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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As long as they are actually being given choices besides the type that is
between the lesser of two evils. To ease the price restrictions and assume
there will never be collusion on the raising of domain prices across the
board is a "trust the registries, they will do the right thing" approach.
Human nature and history tell us that this approach is not wise. It is very
simple to put price caps into the contracts, then if as the registry's
representatives say, they don't intend to raise the prices in the ways
suggested, then there should be no resistance to the price caps. It would be
moot. It wouldn't affect their business plan anyway so why not include it?

Give me good reasons why it is not in the users best interest to have the
price restrictions, please.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Veni Markovski" <veni@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped


> Karl,
>
> I disagree with you that "the internet user has no effective voice in
> ICANN".  In my humble opinion, I think they have a very effective voice
> through their buying choices.  Certainly in the past that was not the
> case because there were not many choices, but that has changed
> considerably and hopefully will change even more going forward.
>
> I have been one of those who have always supported user representation
> in ICANN policy making processes and I still believe it's all about the
> users, but I have come to the conclusion that it may be impossible to
> ever adequately represent users.  Someone who I respect a lot made the
> observation that Internet users are much too diverse and widespread
> around the world to ever be represented in any effective manner through
> organizational processes.  That does not mean that efforts should cease
> to do so, but whatever actions are taken in that regard should always be
> recognized in the context of their real limitations.
>
> I strongly believe that, aside from ensuring security and stability, the
> most important thing that ICANN (the Board, ICANN staff, the SO's, the
> advisory committees, the users) can do is to continually work toward
> providing users more choices and then let them speak through their
> buying choices.
>
> Chuck Gomes
> VeriSign Information Services
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:05 AM
> > To: Veni Markovski
> > Cc: George Kirikos; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if
> > left uncapped
> >
> > Veni Markovski wrote:
> > > At 01:46 PM 08.8.2006 '?.'  -0700, George Kirikos wrote:
> > >> Veni,
> >
> > > George,
> > > Why don't you run for the board, and represent registrants
> > effectively?
> >
> > Uh, ICANN has not allowed anyone to run for the board since 2000.
> >
> > ICANN no longer has elections; the internet user has no
> > effective voice
> > in ICANN - and I don't consider the "ALAC" to be anything but
> > a bad joke
> > - particularly when compared to the red carpet that ICANN
> > rolls out for
> > those involved in the domain name business place, big businesses, and
> > the intellectual property industry.
> >
> > Also - once on a board, a board member no longer "represents" anyone,
> > but is rather an independent decision maker who must look to the
> > interests of the corporation, and in the case of California
> > public-benefit corporations (such as ICANN) also to look to
> > the interest
> > of the public.
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>