Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michael,

We appreciate your post outlining the pros and cons of the tiered pricing
model and your proposed solution. However, we believe that the problem is
far greater than just tiered / variable pricing. The registry agreements
need to include price caps to prevent abusive registry behavior. In our
opinion, your proposal as outlined is flawed.

"Registry Operator shall not impose any tiered (variable) pricing model on
any actively registered domain name. This restriction shall not apply to any
uniformly applied fee increases imposed on all registrants, such as a fixed
percentage annual increase."

Under this proposal, profit maximizing registries would have the ability to
exploit existing registrants by charging exorbitant renewal fees at the
expense of adding new registrants. It is possible that a registry may
determine that the way to maximize their revenues is to raise all prices
across the board by 1,000% or more. In this scenario, existing registrants
would be held hostage due to the effort and expenses already invested into
developing their domains.

Tiered pricing in any form is simply not an acceptable solution. Price caps
must be a mandatory part of current and future registry agreements.

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


> 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
> >