RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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

No disagreement from me.  I have supported the introduction of new TLDs
that will allow market forces to work more freely for as long as the
topic has been discussed.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of kidsearch
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:46 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz; Jeff Williams
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann board address
> Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
>