Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim here. We need a lot of new TLDs that are viable for market
forces to level the playing field.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


> > 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
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/06
>
>