RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jefsey fill us in here,
  

JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
    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.
   
  Major snippage here of that which made sense but what do these beggining and end mean..
  You speak like you are running for political office in New England US?
  How can you say nothining with so many words?
  e
  
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

 


 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.