Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff,

There is a clear conflict of interest if a registry was allowed to become a
registrar in its own TLD. It's very difficult to envision non-preferential
treatment between the registry and its own registrar unit. Even though Chuck
said the other day that the Registry Constituency did not intend removing it
from all agreements, VeriSign DID make that specific recommendation to
remove the prohibition from ALL registry agreements.

"to maintain a level playing field, it should be removed from all existing
and proposed registry agreements as well."
See attachment at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00186.html

VeriSign's actions with small TLDs deserves careful and continued scrutiny.
We are of the impression that they are trying to push through significant
rule changes under the radar. Once the proposals are adopted, they would
then demand equal terms from ICANN. VeriSign must be salivating at the
thought of getting presumptive renewal, price cap removal and unrestricted
data mining for its own .com and .net, as those clauses are in the proposed
.biz, .info and .org registry agreements.

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


> Tim and all,
>
>   Exactly right here, Tim.  This has been said in many different ways over
> and over again by myself and many others.  However I believe what Chuck
> is trying to get at here is that he sees no reason why Registries cannot
> also sell Domain names themselves.
>
> Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
> > 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
<snipped>