RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

Those registries already can sell domain names themselves, as a reseller
of a registrar who is not themselves.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Jeff Williams
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 10:34 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann board address
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
>
>  -------- 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