ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

  • To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
  • From: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:36:31 -0400
  • References: <20060831125648.26351.qmail@web52205.mail.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If a registry cannot find a way to increase their bottom line besides price
hikes, then it pretty much proves what we have said all along that ICANN
does not have the expertise to review anyone's business plan. They approved
them for these registries yet they don't know how to create revenue streams
other than price hikes. Makes it obvious ICANN approved a business plan or
two that weren't very good.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:56 AM
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 All price hike proposals should be withdrawn.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
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/434 - Release Date: 8/30/06
>
>




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