RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

East fix.  The RyC did not intend to suggest removing it from all
agreements.
 

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services



 


________________________________

	From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Prophet Partners Inc.
	Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:39 AM
	To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
	
	
	Hi Chuck,
	 
	Correct us if we're wrong, but your recommendation is "to
maintain a level playing field, it should be removed from all existing
and proposed registry agreements as well." with "it" being a rule
forbidding registries from being a registrar for their own TLD. We would
like to emphasize that you recommended a removal from "ALL" agreements
and not an isolated exception for some small floundering sTLDs. Your
recommendation could be compared to that of a hypothetical Exxon / Mobil
proposal for equal access to small business tax credits, so that every
business would be on a level playing field. If VeriSign has absolutely
no desire to become a registrar as you claim, then VeriSign should be
happy to recommend a policy that explicitly conveys that point.
	 
	If the U.S. Government asked for your permission to wiretap your
phones and read your email, but said they had no intention of doing so,
would you take their word for it and allow them? Of course not. That is
why we are concerned with actions undertaken by VeriSign, which we view
as anti-competitive. A formal recommendation to a policy making body, to
rescind rules that were created to foster competition, is a cause for
concern.
	 
	Please elaborate on how registries can be held hostage by
registrars with which they do no business.
	 
	Sincerely,
	Ted
	Prophet Partners Inc.
	http://www.ProphetPartners.com
	http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com
	 

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  
		To: Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; Prophet
Partners Inc. <mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
		Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:10 PM
		Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


		I should also clarify that the RyC did not initiate the
idea that registries should become registrars.  That was suggested by
non-registry members of the new gTLD PDP committee in response to our
suggestion that this issue needed to be dealt with for small sTLDs that
have difficulty getting adequate registrar support.  Our latest comments
were simply to point out that our current agreements do not allow us to
be registrars for our own TLDs, so that requirement would have to be
changed in those agreements where the problem exists.
		
		Also, this should not be taken as a criticism of
registrars.  They have the right to make their own business decisions
with respect to what TLDs they want to sell.  At the same time, affected
registries should not be held hostage by registrars who elect not to
support their TLD.
		
		Chuck
		
		
		Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
		
		 -----Original Message-----
		From:   Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
		Sent:   Thursday, August 31, 2006 03:54 PM Eastern
Standard Time
		To:     Prophet Partners Inc.; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
		Subject:        Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
		
		Let me set the record straight:  VeriSign has no
interest in becoming a registrar.  Registrars do an excellent job of
selling .com and .net names.  The same cannot be said of some of the
small sTLDs though.  That is what this issue is about.
		
		Chuck
		
		
		Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
		
		 -----Original Message-----
		From:   Prophet Partners Inc.
[mailto:Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
		Sent:   Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:35 AM Eastern
Standard Time
		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