RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Prophet Partners (do you have a name, it would be much more personal
than referring to a corporate entity)

You are exactly correct in the inevitable blurring of lines between
registries and registrars. Historically there was a bright line between
registries and registrars. However, I have begun to use the term
registration authorities as this is the likely evolution of the name
space. In fact I am sure we will see a number of ICANN registrars (or
sister companies) behind a number of the new TLD applications being
submitted next year.  

Just like some of the these larger registrars are in favor of volume
discounts from registries, these same larger registrars are also eyeing
the opportunity to enter the registry business as well. I guess the
point I am trying to make is that this is not a bad thing. This is
competition at work, and why it is so impractical to try to have ICANN
regulate a dynamic space.

Answer the following question. If there was a TLD in which domain names
were free, and the registry made its money solely from advertising
dollars why would you need registrars? 

If Famous ISP was to get its own TLD. Why would it need registrars, it
knows each of its customers and bills them on a regular basis?

The point I am trying to make is that ICANN accredited registrars will
be an important part of the domain name market now and into the future
and they should be. However, I find it highly unlikely that ICANN will
mandate the exclusive use of ICANN accredited registrars in EVERY TLD
for the reasons outlined above. 

Given the potential blurring of these lines, the comments of the
Registry Constituency which were shared by Chuck Gomes are not so
unreasonable are they?

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Prophet Partners Inc.
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:11 AM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


Please note the desire of VeriSign and the other gTLDs to become
registrars in direct competition with their own customers. In our
opinion, this is further evidence of their intentions and should be very
alarming to the community.

The comments below are a portion of Chuck Gomes' attachment in the
following message.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00186.html

Term of Reference 2 Recommendation, Initial Report

  a.. Regarding the recommendation that only ICANN accredited registrars
should  be used and the argument by several on the Dec05 PDP Committee
that, if registrars are not adequately serving a gTLD, then the affected
registry/sponsor should become a registrar:
    a.. Existing and proposed registry agreements forbid
registries/sponsors from being registrars for their own TLD, so this
approach only works for new gTLDs going forward.
    b.. If the committee is going to support this recommendation, then
it should be accompanied by a recommendation that the contractual term
forbidding registries from being registrars for their TLD should not be
in the new registry agreements and, to maintain a level playing field,
it should be removed from all existing and proposed registry agreements
as well.
    c.. Also, the minority opinion of the RyC should be included in the
Final Report:  The requirement that only ICANN-accredited registrars may
be used should be modified to allow some flexibility in cases where
registrar support does not meet some mutually agreed-to service level
criteria for a given gTLD.  The underlying premise of this position is
that gTLD registries or sponsors should not be held hostage by
registrars who are not willing to or are unqualified to serve the
applicable registrant community. Sincerely,

Prophet Partners Inc.

http://www.ProphetPartners.com

http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:56 AM
Subject: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


> 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