RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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

You are totally missing the point Karl.  Nobody is suggesting that ICANN
guarantee business success or prop of registries but a registry's hands
should not be tied so they cannot drum up busiess themselves.  Right
now, they must rely on registrars to do that for them and if registrars
elect not to do it, they are stuck. 

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:37 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > If a small registry is reqired to sell registrations only 
> through ICANN 
> > accredited registrars but registrars don't what to support 
> their TLD, 
> > what are their options?  Right now there are none.
> 
> What is ICANN supposed to do?  Guarantee business success?  If small 
> TLD's don't have the ability to drum up business sufficient 
> to attract 
> the interest of registrars then I see no reason for you or I 
> to have an 
> ICANN or ICANN rules that prop's them up.
> 
> Zombie TLD's don't need life support.
> 
> ICANN *requires* a registry-registrar model.  Why?  It's not the only 
> way, but it is *the* only ICANN way.  (For example, in my .ewe system 
> there are no registrars at all, and name sales are for terms that are 
> essentially permanent.)
> 
> There is no damage if a small registry goes away.  That is, assuming 
> that the customers had alternatives, which is not the case today.
> 
> For the legacy TLDs, in which customers (such as myself, who have had 
> domain names since before there was a Network Solutions, a 
> Verisign, or 
> an ICANN) are trapped and have no choice but to endure else abandon 
> their net identities.  In those TLD's regulation for the benefit of 
> those users, and solely for the benefit of those users, is necessary.
> 
> I've long suggested that in order to minimize the burden on everyone 
> that those legacy TLDs (.com/.net/.org/.edu) that the registries be 
> required once each year to submit signed statement from an 
> independent 
> auditor stating that those registries engage in business asset 
> preservation practices (not merely written, but actually used and 
> tested) so that a successor-in-interest or the customers 
> could, if they 
> chose to do so, resurrect the registration assets of a failed 
> registry.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
>