RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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

Ted,

Please note my clarifications below.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Prophet Partners Inc.
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 2:14 AM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> There is a clear conflict of interest if a registry was 
> allowed to become a
> registrar in its own TLD.

I have no argument here and would say that any such conflicts would have
to be dealt with if terms were changed for certain sTLDs where registrar
support was determined to be lacking.

> It's very difficult to envision 
> non-preferential
> treatment between the registry and its own registrar unit.

Regardless of whether you can envision it or not, it has been
successfully done.
 
> 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.

VeriSign did NOT make that specific recommendation.  I (Chuck Gomes) did
and that was in my role as a representative for the RyC not as an
employee of VeriSign.

> 
> "to maintain a level playing field, it should be removed from 
> all existing
> and proposed registry agreements as well."

I already stated that this statement should be corrected.

> 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.


VeriSign as a company doesn't have any direct interest in the issue of
allowing registries to be registrars for their own TLDs.  Everything I
have posted in this regard was done solely in my role as a
representative of the RyC on the Dec05 PDP (Introduction of New gTLDs)
and not in my capacity as a VeriSign employee.  The RyC Articles of
Operation require any representatives of the RyC to communicate the
positions of the RyC and that has been exactly what I have been trying
to do.  That does not mean that I do not support the RyC position,
because I do, but not because of how it would benefit VeriSign (it
wouldn't) but because of my understanding of the challenges faced by
some of the small sTLDs.

> 
> 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>
> 
> 
>