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

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> 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.

With all due respect, Michael, one can't help but be skeptical about such
a statement.  It is not at all clear to me that your stated positions
would be the same were you not employed in your present capacity by a
registry.  So please don't take it the wrong way if some of us find it
hard to disassociate your words from the intentions of your paymasters.

> 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.

Each of us is entitled to their opinions.  Personally, I could not
disagree with you more.

>
> 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.

I think what George (and he will correct me if I err) meant was that the
ICANN staff ought not to be rushing the negotiations with a view to
finalizing them before *all* views and angles on the subject have been
cogently expressed and analyzed.  After all, what is the rush?

>
> 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.

Michael,  I live in Canada and I happen to own a number of .com TLDs. 
Verisign, the COM sole source registry, is an American corporation. 
Realistically speaking, how much pressure could a Canadian national
competition authority bring to bear on Verisign?

>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.

According to the logic employed on these lists for years by your
colleagues in the registry business(es), there is NO SUCH THING as a
unregistered name!  When a domain is first registered it is created where
it did not exist before.  To say then that an unregistered name exists is
to qualify it as some class of property that belongs to a registry
irrespective of the FACT that before its initial registration the domain
did not exist.  So why are the registries not willing to live by their own
words and to simply allow the original registration to lapse back into
non-existence until such time as another registrant comes along and
re-creates it?  Why should the registry have ANY kind of claim on a domain
name at all?

>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.

Hmm...7% per year.  What would be the justification for such an increase,
pray tell?  (that's even greater than the rate of inflation!) So, let's do
the math: $6 x .07= $6.42 in the 1st year, $6.42 x .07= $6.86 in the 2nd
year, $7.34 in the 3rd year, $7.85 in the 4th year, $8.40 in the 5th,
$8.99 in the 6th, $9.62 in the 7th, $10.29 in the 8th, $11.01 in the 9th,
$11.78 in the 10th.  So, in 10 years the registry price for a first time
registration would be DOUBLE what it is today.  But once again, what would
be the justification for such an increase? Is it simply for the
mollification of shareholders and their dividends?  Does this really serve
the public interest?  Will there be a continuing and commensurate
re-investment in the registry operations and technologies themselves?  How
will this be verified and does this question not provide cause for
questions regarding the continued stability, maintenance and continued
flawless functioning of the TLDs in question?

---More to come later on the rest of your email, but I cannot continue at
this point.  I look forward to your comments.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos