RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do agree - it's not that complicated, but not sure what you consider
reasonable support to be. If a gTLD is having difficulty it's likely
because:

1. They didn't do a reasonable amount of market research before hand to
determine if there was even a market for there product. True, they
shouldn't be required to do that, but then they are taking a risk.

2. They didn't support their own TLD by promoting it sufficiently
themselves.

3. And/or there just isn't any interest in it.

But again, I don't know of any existing gTLD (sponsored or not) that
does not currently have support from multiple registrars. If you mean
that some gTLDs start up with the idea that registrars would contribute
promotional and marketing funds to promote it, then that's something
they should have secured before taking the leap.


Tim 


 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, September 01, 2006 10:32 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@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--
        >
        >