<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
- To: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:49:20 -0700
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.7.2
<div>Chuck, I'm a little confused. Where in any contract or policy are the
registries restricted from drumming up business for themselves? While
it's true that a registry must have a least one registrar on board to
sell domain names (directly or by referral), there is nothing I am
aware of that restricts registries from promoting their TLD. In fact, I
am not aware of any registry, even the smallest sTLD, that does not
currently have multiple registrars signed on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only reason any competition whatsoever exists today is because
there are price controls on the limited number of gTLDs who must sell
through registrars who truly do compete. It's that paradigm that has
reduced the cost of domain names from a minimum up front investment of
$70 to just a few bucks. The continued introduction of new gTLDs may
change that paradigm some day, but we are not there yet.</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [ga]
Tiered (Variable) Pricing<BR>From: "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Fri, September 01, 2006 8:33
am<BR>To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc:
<ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>You are totally missing the point
Karl. Nobody is suggesting that ICANN<BR>guarantee business
success or prop of registries but a registry's hands<BR>should not be
tied so they cannot drum up busiess themselves. Right<BR>now,
they must rely on registrars to do that for them and if
registrars<BR>elect not to do it, they are stuck. <BR><BR>Chuck
Gomes<BR>VeriSign Information Services<BR><BR><BR><BR>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Karl Auerbach
[mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx] <BR>> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006
7:37 PM<BR>> To: Gomes, Chuck<BR>> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>>
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing<BR>> <BR>> Gomes,
Chuck wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > If a small registry is reqired to
sell registrations only <BR>> through ICANN <BR>> > accredited
registrars but registrars don't what to support <BR>> their TLD,
<BR>> > what are their options? Right now there are
none.<BR>> <BR>> What is ICANN supposed to do? Guarantee
business success? If small <BR>> TLD's don't have the ability
to drum up business sufficient <BR>> to attract <BR>> the
interest of registrars then I see no reason for you or I <BR>> to
have an <BR>> ICANN or ICANN rules that prop's them up.<BR>>
<BR>> Zombie TLD's don't need life support.<BR>> <BR>> ICANN
*requires* a registry-registrar model. Why? It's not the
only <BR>> way, but it is *the* only ICANN way. (For example,
in my .ewe system <BR>> there are no registrars at all, and name
sales are for terms that are <BR>> essentially permanent.)<BR>>
<BR>> There is no damage if a small registry goes away. That
is, assuming <BR>> that the customers had alternatives, which is not
the case today.<BR>> <BR>> For the legacy TLDs, in which customers
(such as myself, who have had <BR>> domain names since before there
was a Network Solutions, a <BR>> Verisign, or <BR>> an ICANN) are
trapped and have no choice but to endure else abandon <BR>> their net
identities. In those TLD's regulation for the benefit of <BR>>
those users, and solely for the benefit of those users, is
necessary.<BR>> <BR>> I've long suggested that in order to
minimize the burden on everyone <BR>> that those legacy TLDs
(.com/.net/.org/.edu) that the registries be <BR>> required once
each year to submit signed statement from an <BR>> independent
<BR>> auditor stating that those registries engage in business asset
<BR>> preservation practices (not merely written, but actually used
and <BR>> tested) so that a successor-in-interest or the customers
<BR>> could, if they <BR>> chose to do so, resurrect the
registration assets of a failed <BR>> registry.<BR>> <BR>>
--karl--<BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|