ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

  • To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
  • From: "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:08:15 -0400
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <20060831125648.26351.qmail@web52205.mail.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Danny:

I respect the position of you and others with regard to this issue. I
realized when posting this proposal I would be taking a position in
between two diametrically opposed viewpoints where I was likely to get
shot at by both sides. Notwithstanding this reality, I think my proposed
contractual changes are such that it provides the registry operator the
flexibility that it needs in its operations, while protecting the
reasonable expectation interests of existing registrants.

Best regards,

Michael



 



-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:57 AM
To: Michael D. Palage; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


Michael,

The Community has drawn a line in the sand.  Catering
to the naked greed of registry operators is not an
option.  

Your proposed compromise is not acceptable -- owing to economies of
scale, prices should be going down, not up -- instead of increases, we
should be discussing a fixed percentage annual decrease.

All price hike proposals should be withdrawn.
Registries should focus on profit enhancement only by
way of new registry service offerings.

Best regards,
Danny


--- "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello All:
> 
> In the interesting of continuing a very constructive
> dialog with regard
> to tiered pricing, I have published the following
> article on CircleID,
> see
>
http://www.circleid.com/posts/tiered_variable_pricing_compromise/.
> Some of the initial comments such as George's
> continues to take an "all
> or nothing approach" to the current registry
> contracts.  The purpose of
> this article was to address what I saw as one
> loophole which could be
> closed to protect reasonable expectation interests
> of registrants while
> allowing registries the flexibility to use
> tiered(variable) pricing in
> their business operations.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael D. Palage
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>