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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well-thought out scenario and true to the point. The registrars however
already abuse the system by taking names that are dropping and asking more
money for them through auctions and outright sales through their website or
by taking expiring names and parking them with google adnonsense on them. I
think this should also be dealt with somehow, but I use it to illustrate the
point that registries and registrars both without some regulation are going
to abuse the system. it is not a matter of "might" abuse or "potential" to
abuse. We absolutely know for sure that they will abuse the system if
allowed to do so.

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Combined Response - Tiered (Variable) Pricing


> Hi Michael,
>
> There is no misunderstanding of your proposed compromise on our end. Your
> proposal says:
>
> "Registry Operator shall not impose any tiered (variable) pricing model on
> any actively registered domain name. This restriction shall not apply to
any
> uniformly applied fee increases imposed on all registrants, such as a
fixed
> percentage annual increase."
>
> We replied that the potential for registry abuse exists even in a flat fee
> environment, if the price caps are removed. Tiered / variable pricing
allows
> an even greater degree of registry abuse. Let's use an example of a
> potential scenario that could unfold, so that there is no misunderstanding
> about this issue.
>
> For the sake of simplicity, let's say Greedy Registry has 1,000,000 domain
> registrations for its .soso TLD. The average retail cost to register or
> renew a .soso domain name is $10. At this time, ICANN approves several
> flawed registry agreements with clauses that provides registries with
> presumptive renewal rights and removes price caps on registry services.
This
> occurs despite a universal public consensus that bestowing omnipotent
powers
> on the registries is certain to invite registry abuse.
>
> After several years of a global recession and disappointing earnings at
> Greedy Registry, investors in Greedy Registry pressure management to take
> action to increase revenue, profits and dividends. Domain registrations
have
> been stagnant over this period of time with total .soso registrations
> remaining at 1,000,000.
>
> Greedy Registry considers several alternatives to boost revenues and
> earnings. Greedy Registry knows that roughly 1/2 of the .soso domains are
> developed and that demand from this segment is inelastic. In other words,
> demand for renewing these developed domains will remain strong despite a
> significant increase in price. Greedy Registry also knows that the
> registrants of many of these developed domains have invested significant
> resources and capital. The many factors include, but are not limited to
> buying the domain name itself, creating brand awareness, hiring a web
design
> and graphics company, writing editorial content, hosting the website,
paying
> employees, retaining web promotion / SEO consultants, developing a
customer
> base, building advertiser relationships, budgeting general overhead
expenses
> and putting in countless hours of personal time and energy. The average
> amount of invested resources and capital in these domains is easily in
> excess of $1,000.
>
> Greedy Registry settles on a plan to UNIFORMLY increase all registry
prices
> across the board by 1,000%, so that the average retail cost of a .soso
> registration or renewal rises to $100. These prices are NON-DISCRIMINATORY
> and would affect EVERYONE in the .soso TLD, including landrush
registrants,
> recent registrants and prospective registrants.
>
> Within 1 year of the price increase, total .soso registrations plunges by
> 600,000 to 400,000. The majority of the expired registrations are
> undeveloped domains with the rest of the decline consisting of .soso
domains
> from small businesses, organizations and individuals who could not afford
to
> maintain their developed domains. New .soso registrations comes to a
> complete halt.
>
> Despite the steep decline in .soso registrations, the management and
> investors of Greedy Registry are extremely happy as revenues have
quadrupled
> and earnings have quintupled. Greedy Registry then raises prices again,
with
> future plans for additional price increases, knowing that existing .soso
> registrants have no other choice than to accept the price increase or lose
> their domains.
>
> .soso registrants are outraged that ICANN did nothing to protect them,
even
> though they overwhelmingly opposed and voiced their opinions to ICANN
years
> ago, regarding a flawed proposed .soso registry agreement that
intentionally
> created perpetually renewing contracts and eliminated price caps.
>
> Again, we reiterate that it is completely unacceptable to create
presumptive
> renewal rights and remove price caps in a single supplier market.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ted
> 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 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.
>
> <snipped>
>
> > 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.
>
> <snipped>
>
> > 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
>
>