Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
Gomes, Chuck wrote: If a small registry is reqired to sell registrations only through ICANN accredited registrars but registrars don't what to support their TLD, what are their options? Right now there are none. What is ICANN supposed to do? Guarantee business success? If small TLD's don't have the ability to drum up business sufficient to attract the interest of registrars then I see no reason for you or I to have an ICANN or ICANN rules that prop's them up. Zombie TLD's don't need life support. ICANN *requires* a registry-registrar model. Why? It's not the only way, but it is *the* only ICANN way. (For example, in my .ewe system there are no registrars at all, and name sales are for terms that are essentially permanent.) There is no damage if a small registry goes away. That is, assuming that the customers had alternatives, which is not the case today. For the legacy TLDs, in which customers (such as myself, who have had domain names since before there was a Network Solutions, a Verisign, or an ICANN) are trapped and have no choice but to endure else abandon their net identities. In those TLD's regulation for the benefit of those users, and solely for the benefit of those users, is necessary. I've long suggested that in order to minimize the burden on everyone that those legacy TLDs (.com/.net/.org/.edu) that the registries be required once each year to submit signed statement from an independent auditor stating that those registries engage in business asset preservation practices (not merely written, but actually used and tested) so that a successor-in-interest or the customers could, if they chose to do so, resurrect the registration assets of a failed registry. --karl--
|