RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

Chuck, they (these small TLD registries) knew that when they signed up.

Maybe they should not have proposed hobbled TLDs, or maybe they
shouldn't have been granted them, but they did and they were.

All these small registries have more than one registrar signed up with
them, don't they?

Are you saying that if the registry gets one more registrar (themselves)
all of a sudden they'll be killing it?

 

I agree with you that it is not that complicated.

On this rest of this subject I agree with Tim.

 

________________________________

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:32 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

 

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--
        >
        >