Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My two cents worth on that is there should be no need for defensive
registrations in the first place. Many people hold trademarks on the same
string of letters and one should not be preferred over another. Its the
reason I advocate the creation of more tlds that reflect the particular
classes that trademarks are registered in. Sunrise periods are bogus and
benefit few people. Let the courts handle anything that results in trademark
disputes and throw the UDRP and WIPO to the dogs. The system is broke on
that point.

However I agree 100% with the point you were intending to make here. They
should not be allowed to hold up certain names for premium pricing.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Narten" <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


> Michael,
>
> One point your article doesn't seem to really touch on is the
> justification for a registry using tiers for initial name sales. That
> is, if such tiered pricing were allowed (for new names), I'd imagine
> that (for example) names associated with Fortune 500 companies would
> make obvious candidates for being charged a premium. But _why_ should
> that be generally allowed? Does that really benefit the community as a
> whole?
>
> It would be one thing if companies could opt out of paying the premium
> fee and simply have particular names remain unused, but in practice
> the name will be picked up by someone else, and a company would feel a
> strong need to purchase names to prevent this. I.e., it would be
> forced to pay premium prices for defensive name purchases.
>
> This would seem to benefit (mostly) the registry, and no one else that
> I can think of, at the expense of companies forced to make defensive
> purchases to protect their branded/trademarked names.
>
> Now, I could imagine many ways to address this (including just
> disallowing tiered pricing!), but your proposal doesn't seem to really
> touch on the issue itself.
>
> I suspect, however, that the key issue leading to discomfort with the
> entire idea of tiered pricing is that it appears to be a windfall for
> registries. After all, registries are in no way responsible for the
> value associated with a name. Why should they be allowed to cash in on
> a name's value (by charging more for valuable names than for less
> desirable names)?
>
> Thomas
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>