ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

Michael,
I feel your proposition does not match your vision which is correct. We agree registrars are a no-industry invented by ICANN to make money and to initially fund Verisign with the money of the registrars' shareholders. The correct evolution is for them to become registries. No problem with that. No problem with them chosing to charge for their yearly service anything they want and to include for that price anything the want.

The problem is the registrant hi-jacking. The registrants currently invest far more in collaterals than in registration. To permit an hold-up on that investment is bad for all. To the countrary we must create the defacto best practice of a price cap indexed on some acceptable variable or on an ICANN published industry index.

This means that if someone enters the market with a $ 1000 per annum registration fee TLD, there is no problem. But a $ 10 per year TLD cannot jump at $ 15 except if the ICANN index went from 100 to 150. This also means that if the ICANN index goes to 90 or to 105, the $ 1000 domain name will have to fluctuate to a maximum of $ 900 or $ 1050.

I doubt that ICANN can continue for a long with its bluff monopoly on the DNS. As Vint Cerf says, the authoritative root is the one with the largest user basis. The largest user basis is not with the NTIA/ICANN root but with the GSMA/NeuStar root (cell phones), and soon the second root file will be the Chinese root. I also think that we are going to see many innovative services attached to the dumb stupid ICANN domain names, including variable pricing related to the number of accesses, usage statistics being a by-product, and dynamic dns related services, etc. DNSSEC will also change a few things. IMHO domain names will become free at some point and give access to specialised exclusive paying services. ICANN is not fostering competition but is frozing innovation.

I described the industry autoregulation scenario that proposed tiered pricing leads to. If ICANN maintains its current proposition or adopt yours as a compromise, it means Vint Cerf bets on a Google's Internet, with the resulting opposition it will raise. If they were to adopt mine (which will necessarily be the solution Big Brother Google would eventually come with) we may have a chance to keep some stability during the evolution process and the multilingualisation.

jfc





On 18:07 31/08/2006, Michael D. Palage said:

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

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