RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Mike,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I think the paradigm that seems to be evolving from your comments and
proposal&nbsp;bring into the question the very need for an organization
like ICANN. Is that correct?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>If I understand&nbsp;you correctly, registrars are not necessary
and&nbsp;registries should be allowed to basically regulate themselves
- pricing, registration&nbsp;policies, etc. - leaving registries as the
Internet's actual governing bodies.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>What will ICANN really be needed for? The only thing left is to run
IANA.&nbsp;I have no doubt the registries would see that as a positive
thing.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Of course, the problem with all of this today is that the set of TLDs
that really have any market power is very small (pretty much a set of
1). There is no true portability&nbsp;of domain names, it only exists
between registrars. If registries&nbsp;become not only the sole source
provider but potentially the sole source distributor of their services
what happens to competition?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>There may be a day in the far flung future when some of what you and
the&nbsp;registries aspire to makes sense. Tomorrow, next&nbsp;month,
or next year is not that day.<BR></div>
<div><BR>Tim<BR></div>
<DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [ga]
Tiered (Variable) Pricing<BR>From: "Michael D. Palage"
&lt;Michael@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, August 31, 2006 11:07
am<BR>To: "'Prophet Partners Inc.'"
&lt;Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,<BR>&lt;ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Prophet
Partners (do you have a name, it would be much more personal<BR>than
referring to a corporate entity)<BR><BR>You are exactly correct in the
inevitable blurring of lines between<BR>registries and registrars.
Historically there was a bright line between<BR>registries and
registrars. However, I have begun to use the term<BR>registration
authorities as this is the likely evolution of the name<BR>space. In
fact I am sure we will see a number of ICANN registrars (or<BR>sister
companies) behind a number of the new TLD applications
being<BR>submitted next year. &nbsp;<BR><BR>Just like some of the these
larger registrars are in favor of volume<BR>discounts from registries,
these same larger registrars are also eyeing<BR>the opportunity to
enter the registry business as well. I guess the<BR>point I am trying
to make is that this is not a bad thing. This is<BR>competition at
work, and why it is so impractical to try to have ICANN<BR>regulate a
dynamic space.<BR><BR>Answer the following question. If there was a TLD
in which domain names<BR>were free, and the registry made its money
solely from advertising<BR>dollars why would you need registrars?
<BR><BR>If Famous ISP was to get its own TLD. Why would it need
registrars, it<BR>knows each of its customers and bills them on a
regular basis?<BR><BR>The point I am trying to make is that ICANN
accredited registrars will<BR>be an important part of the domain name
market now and into the future<BR>and they should be. However, I find
it highly unlikely that ICANN will<BR>mandate the exclusive use of
ICANN accredited registrars in EVERY TLD<BR>for the reasons outlined
above. <BR><BR>Given the potential blurring of these lines, the
comments of the<BR>Registry Constituency which were shared by Chuck
Gomes are not so<BR>unreasonable are they?<BR><BR>Best
regards,<BR><BR>Michael D. Palage<BR><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf<BR>Of Prophet Partners
Inc.<BR>Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:11 AM<BR>To:
ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable)
Pricing<BR><BR><BR>Please note the desire of VeriSign and the other
gTLDs to become<BR>registrars in direct competition with their own
customers. In our<BR>opinion, this is further evidence of their
intentions and should be very<BR>alarming to the community.<BR><BR>The
comments below are a portion of Chuck Gomes' attachment in
the<BR>following
message.<BR><BR>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00186.html<BR><BR>Term
of Reference 2 Recommendation, Initial Report<BR><BR>&nbsp;a.. Regarding
the recommendation that only ICANN accredited registrars<BR>should
&nbsp;be used and the argument by several on the Dec05 PDP
Committee<BR>that, if registrars are not adequately serving a gTLD,
then the affected<BR>registry/sponsor should become a
registrar:<BR>&nbsp; &nbsp;a.. Existing and proposed registry
agreements forbid<BR>registries/sponsors from being registrars for
their own TLD, so this<BR>approach only works for new gTLDs going
forward.<BR>&nbsp; &nbsp;b.. If the committee is going to support this
recommendation, then<BR>it should be accompanied by a recommendation
that the contractual term<BR>forbidding registries from being
registrars for their TLD should not be<BR>in the new registry
agreements and, to maintain a level playing field,<BR>it should be
removed from all existing and proposed registry agreements<BR>as
well.<BR>&nbsp; &nbsp;c.. Also, the minority opinion of the RyC should
be included in the<BR>Final Report: &nbsp;The requirement that only
ICANN-accredited registrars may<BR>be used should be modified to allow
some flexibility in cases where<BR>registrar support does not meet some
mutually agreed-to service level<BR>criteria for a given gTLD. &nbsp;The
underlying premise of this position is<BR>that gTLD registries or
sponsors should not be held hostage by<BR>registrars who are not
willing to or are unqualified to serve the<BR>applicable registrant
community. Sincerely,<BR><BR>Prophet Partners
Inc.<BR><BR>http://www.ProphetPartners.com<BR><BR>http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----
Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Michael D. Palage"
&lt;Michael@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>To: &lt;ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Sent:
Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:56 AM<BR>Subject: [ga] Tiered (Variable)
Pricing<BR><BR><BR>&gt; Hello All:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; In the interesting
of continuing a very constructive dialog with <BR>&gt; regard to tiered
pricing, I have published the following article on <BR>&gt; CircleID,
see <BR>&gt;
http://www.circleid.com/posts/tiered_variable_pricing_compromise/.<BR>&gt;
Some of the initial comments such as George's continues to take
an<BR>"all<BR>&gt; or nothing approach" to the current registry
contracts. &nbsp;The purpose<BR>of<BR>&gt; this article was to address
what I saw as one loophole which could be<BR>&gt; closed to protect
reasonable expectation interests of registrants<BR>while<BR>&gt;
allowing registries the flexibility to use tiered(variable) pricing
in<BR>&gt; their business operations.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Best
regards,<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Michael D. Palage </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>