Re: [ga] Combined Response - Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"It is my personal opinion that most of the ICANN staff are very qualified professionals that give 100% and act within what they believe is the organization's best interest."

Exactly the point we are trying to make here. ICANN is supposed to be acting in the Internet community's best interest, not just the interest of the organization. It is in their interest to cater to the registries, but not in the community's best interest. You may not have meant it in that context, however its like a Freudian slip. This has been the prevailing attitude from the top at ICANN since its creation. No bottom-up consensus and a disdain for users who are willing to spend the time to speak up. You mentioned awhile back about using your free time to write to this list. Many of us have been doing that for quite some tiome and the ICANN board should respect that rather than show disdain for it simply because we speak out.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://icann.thingsthatjustpissmeoff.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:19 PM
Subject: [ga] Combined Response - Tiered (Variable) Pricing 


> Hello All:
> 
> In the interest of efficiency a combined response to the many comments
> that I have received. However, before beginning just a couple of
> background points. First, my comments are in my own individual capacity.
> I have repeated this many times in the past, particularly when I served
> on the Board, but it is always good to remind people of this fact.
> Second, given the volume of posts it is sort of me against everyone.
> That is fine but I would encourage everyone to continue to keep a
> positive tone. When people encourage the Board during their next retreat
> to fire staff, trust me that works against your creditability when the
> Board makes its decision. It is my personal opinion that most of the
> ICANN staff are very qualified professionals that give 100% and act
> within what they believe is the organization's best interest. 
> 
> Response to George:
> 
> With regard to NeuStar and Afilias, their current contracts called for
> them to engage in negotiations with ICANN "no later than eighteen months
> prior to the initial Expiration Date." That 18 month window started at
> the end of January 2006. So I fail to see why they are jumping the gun
> on their negotiations. Some commentators have properly noted that PIR's
> contract does not terminate until 2009 with a similar eighteen month
> negotiation window. Notwithstanding these timelines, there is nothing
> prohibiting two parties in a bi-lateral contract from entering into
> negotiations earlier. In this case it appears that both ICANN and PIR
> wish to standardize their contracts to be in line with the other major
> gTLD registries. 
> 
> Response to Ted @ Prophet Partners:
> 
> Ted nice to meet you and thanks for your contributions. Like many
> commentators I respect your opposition to the restriction of price caps
> from the registry contracts. However, as I have tried to articulate
> previously, I believe potential abuses by a sole source registry
> operator are best left to national competition authorities. Obviously
> this is a point which many in the community disagree. There is one
> important potential misunderstanding that I wanted to address. In your
> response you talked about how the registry could impose tiered(variable)
> pricing on a registrant at renewal. That would not be the case in my
> proposal. As long as the registrant renewed the domain name prior to the
> end of the redemption grace period, the tiered(variable) pricing would
> not apply because that would constitute a registered name. Just to make
> sure there is no confusion, as the registrant of prophetpartners.com as
> long as you maintained your registration, the only fee increased you
> would be subject to would be universal (across the board) fee increases
> such as a 7% annual fee increase. The registry would not be able to
> impose any per domain name tiered(variable) pricing on your domain name.
> 
> Response to Tim Ruiz:
> 
> Just to be clear. I stated 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."
> I am not proposing the elimination of registrars from the current
> marketplace. As Chuck Gomes noted, VeriSign is very happy with the ICANN
> registrars providing domain name registration services in the .COM and
> .NET TLDs. However, as the Dec05 PDP Committee properly noted there may
> be circumstances where existing ICANN accredited registrars are not
> properly serving the community of a sTLD. In this situation the
> discussion was for the registry to become a registrar. Unfortunately
> this is sort of putting form over substance to require the small
> registry operator to expended limited resources becoming a registrar.
> The point I am trying to make is that there are potential circumstances
> where a registry would not need the use of ICANN accredited registrars.
> To impose the exclusive use of ICANN accredited registrars before
> understanding the potential business models that new registry operators
> may propose is overly restrictive.
> 
> My personal view is that the default position for new registry operators
> would be to exclusively use ICANN accredited registrars. However, I
> would have a procedure whereby a registry operator could demonstrate
> that the exclusive use of ICANN accredited registrars was an
> unreasonable imposition. 
> 
> With regard to the need for competition and choice among registry
> operators. I agree it is not weeks or months away. I do not think it is
> unfair to say that ICANN has put all its eggs into one basket given its
> recent actions. That is why I am focusing so much energy on the new TLD
> process, because if that fails, things are not looking very optimistic
> on the competition front in the long term.
> 
> 
> Response to Andy:
> 
> When discussing these contracts everyone, including myself, sometimes
> defaults to talking about VeriSign. However, what we are talking about
> are NeuStar, Afilias and PIR. All of these companies registry revenue
> combined together pales in comparison to the revenue that VeriSign
> collects. However, since you mentioned VeriSign lets look at how they
> have protected the reasonable expectation interests of registrants. The
> price of a .com name has not increased in seven years and they have
> perfect or almost perfect resolution. Granted the SiteFinder experiment
> was a surprise and not what registrants and the larger Internet
> community was expecting, but they did halt SiteFinder after formal
> notice from ICANN.
> 
> 
> Response to Danny:
> 
> Carolyn Hoover, is the designated representative for .COOP within the
> registry constituency. There are times when Carolyn may not be able to
> make an in person meeting where I will sit in and act upon a given set
> of instructions. As noted above, the comments I make are in an
> individual capacity unless otherwise noted. It is true that registrants
> pay a substantial portion of ICANN's budget either indirectly through
> registrars or registries. Although I share your concerns about ICANN's
> growing budget and its impact on all parties, the fact is a price of a
> domain name is still a fraction of what it cost prior to ICANN's
> creation. I look forward to the operational and strategic planning
> cycles which ICANN will be undertaking on a regular basis. I hope that
> some of the metrics that will be used will help increase the level of
> accountability in connection with ICANN's operations.
> 
> Response to Chris:
> 
> Although I agree that a faulty business plan can be a indicator for a
> potentially failed business, the best business plan is no guarantee for
> success. I think ICANN and their experts to date have done a fairly
> reasonably good job in evaluating the various business plans of the TLD
> applicants. Of course executing upon what is written is a different
> story, which ties back into compliance and enforcement issues.
> 
> 
> Response to Karl:
> 
> The lock-in factor is a very real consideration, and an issue that I
> have thought about in great detail. Although there is no absolute
> safeguard to a registry raising pricing to the detriment of a
> registrant, one of the only safeguards is the ability to cap off a
> registration for up to 10 years allowing a registrant a long runway to
> transition to another TLD. I understand that this is less than an
> optimal safeguard, and perhaps increasing the maximum duration of a
> registration beyond 10 years may be an option other registries may which
> to consider in the next round as there does not seem to be a reason to
> fix this at an arbitrary 10 year period.
> 
> 
> Response to Chuck:
> 
> Thanks for making clear the registry constituency statement and the
> basis for it.
> 
> 
> Response to Thomas:
> 
> With regard to tiered/variable pricing in connection with the launch of
> a new TLD, I offered the example of .MOBI's recent launch where they
> used various price points in connection with Sunrise (for trademark
> owners), land rush (first couple of weeks of general registration) and
> steady state (normal registrations). Rolling out a new TLD in an
> equitable fashion is becoming increasing difficult due to the
> sophistication of professional registrants. As one person whom I have
> the highest respect for stated to me recently, tell us the registry
> roll-out rules and I will tell you how we are going to f**k you.
> Professional domain name registrants now have larger trademark
> portfolios that some international companies I know, with the sole
> purpose of providing preferential registration rights during registry
> launches.
> 
> Now John Berryhill and I believe Sortis have questioned why should the
> registry recognize this windfall instead of professional registrants. My
> simple answer is that ICANN has privity of contract with the registry
> and thus has the potential ability to correct any inequitable action.
> There are no such safeguards in connection with the secondary market
> players.
> 
> Launching a new registry is about building brand recognition and
> consumer confidence. Part of that objective is being able to have the
> domain name being visibly used in the public eye. To consider why a
> registry should be permitted some discretion in the allocation of domain
> names on a tiered(variable) basis consider the following hypothetical.
> Overstock, Oakley and Oprah all bid for O.COM. Oprah is selected by
> VeriSign to be the registrant of O.Com either through an auction or some
> other equitable process. All three applicants then approach NeuStar
> about O.BIZ. The reality is Oprah is just trying to defend her single
> letter O turf, whereas Oakley or Overstock might actually use O.BIZ in
> commerce and build the .BIZ brand among consumers. In this circumstance,
> NeuStar should have some discretion in the allocation of O.BIZ in a
> process other than a first-come first serve model and be permitted to
> base any registration fees on a tiered(variable) model.
> 
> Although I generally avoid using property analogies in connection with
> domain names, launching a TLD is a lot like building a city where the
> government needs some discretion with regard to zoning and planning. If
> a registry launch is compromised by professional registrants that take
> all the Class "A" office space and put for sale signs in the windows,
> that negatively impacts the mayors ability to attract new inhabitants
> into the city and build sustainable and diverse revenue base.
> 
> I think I have answered most of the questions. My apologizes to any one
> that I forgot. Considering I have exceeded my ICANN non-billable time
> allotment for the week, I will probably not be responding until early
> next week. So thanks again for the constructive dialog. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael D. Palage
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
>