RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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

Paul,
 
Thanks for participating in the discussion.
 
The fact that the small sTLDs knew they would have to work through
registrars when they signed up does not mean that the required
distribution model is the best one in all cases.  We have learned a lot
since that requirement was put in place.
 
Also, as someone else pointed out on this list ( I think it may have
been Mike Palage), not all TLDs need to be for-profit businesses.  There
is nothing wrong with a gTLD designed to meet the needs of a specific
community.  Should such proposals be denied because they aren't a viable
business in the big corporate world?
 
Because I do not have first hand information about the business
operations of the small sTLDs, I soliticed input from them.  Here are a
couple points they communicated to me that I think are worthy of
consideration.
 
". . we have a small number of registrars (had five now may getting to
about 8) there can be hardly talk about competition, particularly if one
registrar has a majority of names in the TLD anyway. The registrars for
the most part sit and wait for business to come to them, so, this model
converts sponsorship or any start up TLD registry into a charity
organisation set up to support registrars eating up resources that could
be better used for the benefit of those who use Internet."
 
"we are getting many registrant (or pre-registrant) queries about cheap
or simple "starter" packages for people and SOHO that have never been in
the internet before; many (registrars) are not interested in such
call-center-intensive market but registries like (ours), being a
non-profit foundation, is indeed interested as one of our goals is to
expand the use and knowledge of advanced (beyond email and web) internet
tools (upload content, create sites, etc) as a way to develop the
information society."
 
On the latter point, I know that many registrars offer "start-up"
services, but if those registrars do not elect to support a given TLD,
then that makes it more difficult for registrants in that TLD.
 
No, I am not saying that these registries would be "killing it" if they
were allowed to be a registrar, nor am I saying that they would stop
using the registrars that are currently offering their TLD.  I suspect
that these organizations probably don't even have a goal of "killing it"
as you express it.  But they would like to maximize the service provided
for members of their unique community.  Is that unreasonable?
 
Why can't constructive discussions about the distribution model happen?
Why are registrars in general opposed to this?  The RyC has suggested
such options as a first right of refusal for registrars?  We are not
trying to limit registrar opportunities.  But in cases where registrars
elect not to provide much support, shouldn't the sponsors be given some
flexibility to better meet their community member needs?
 

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services



 


________________________________

	From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@xxxxxxxx] 
	Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:48 PM
	To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz
	Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
	Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
	
	

	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--
	        >
	        >