RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I believe what Chuck is trying to get 
> at here is that he sees no reason why 
> Registries cannot also sell Domain 
> names themselves.

Understood Jeff. But since we currently are stuck with a limited field
of gTLDs that will apparently soon have no price controls what do you
think will happen to competition if we also allow registries to be
their own registrar? It's the registry/registrar system that accounts
in large part for the existing competition and lower prices.

I think we need to first get new gTLDs introduced at more than the
current trickle, and see how the price control issue works out before a
truly informed decision can be made about channging the registrar
requirement.


Tim
 


 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, September 04, 2006 12:33 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, icann board address <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>

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
>
>  -------- 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--
>         >
>         >

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
  Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827