RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

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

Suppose you have a consulting contract with a registry, for $300/hr
that ends in 3 years. You come to them in 2006, before the term of the
contract is over, that you want $750/hr, and that you want to
perpetually renew the contract at your whim. The shareholders of the
registry say "No, we have a contract...a deal is a deal."

Is it a "compromise" to then say to them "ok, let's make it $500/hr"?

The above demonstrates that calling something a "compromise" is simply
a weak attempt to frame the issue, when there isn't anything that one
is supposed to compromise or negotiate about. There is a contract in
place. The registries simply want to rewrite the contract, to get
"more". If they don't get $30 million in benefits, they'll take $10
million instead, as it is "more" than zero. 

What happens if ICANN does nothing, and tells them to go take a hike?
Nothing happens....a contract is already in place, it gets re-bid at
the end of the term, and life goes on as normal.

It's pretty simple. Instead of discussing this issue, ICANN's Board
should spend the time in its next Board meeting discussing which staff
members need to be fired for wasting resources renegotiating contracts
that don't need to be renegotiated, and showing poor judgement in
thinking that the terms they negotiated benefit the public in any way.

Sincerely,

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