RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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

Tim,

They are not but they are required to only sell domains thru ICANN accedited registrars so registrars elect not to provide reasonable support foe given TLD, what good would it be to drum up business.  This really isn't that complicated.

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:	Friday, September 01, 2006 10:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Gomes, Chuck
Cc:	ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
Subject:	RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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.
 
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.


Tim 




	-------- Original Message --------
	Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
	From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
	Date: Fri, September 01, 2006 8:33 am
	To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
	Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
	
	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--
	> 
	>