Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I should also clarify that the RyC did not initiate the idea that registries should become registrars.  That was suggested by non-registry members of the new gTLD PDP committee in response to our suggestion that this issue needed to be dealt with for small sTLDs that have difficulty getting adequate registrar support.  Our latest comments were simply to point out that our current agreements do not allow us to be registrars for our own TLDs, so that requirement would have to be changed in those agreements where the problem exists.

Also, this should not be taken as a criticism of registrars.  They have the right to make their own business decisions with respect to what TLDs they want to sell.  At the same time, affected  registries should not be held hostage by registrars who elect not to support their TLD.

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:	Thursday, August 31, 2006 03:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Prophet Partners Inc.; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

Let me set the record straight:  VeriSign has no interest in becoming a registrar.  Registrars do an excellent job of selling .com and .net names.  The same cannot be said of some of the small sTLDs though.  That is what this issue is about.

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Prophet Partners Inc. [mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:	Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:35 AM Eastern Standard Time
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