<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
so chuck, on behalf of verisign, in the interest of these small tlds
whose opinions you are putting forward, would you agree to a separate
and distinct status for .com and .net?
Regards
Elliot Noss
On 5-Sep-06, at 2:33 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Here is some additional feedback from another small sTLD that I
think is relevant.
"Registrar's are in the business of selling names and services but
they generally have no contact points in the various communities
which means they cannot promote the value of a specific domain. Nor
do they really care if (members of a specific community) register a
domain. However, (the sponsor of an sTLD) wants the community to
use the Internet to build support for (their) specific business
model so the (sponsor has) a vested interest in specifically
selling (the sTLD). The registrar is just happy to sell any domain
name and typically hopes to make money selling services (as the
market has evolved.) We can provide some services to our community
directly but for other issues they must go through their registrar.
So the level of service is dependent on the registrar rather than
being something that could be supported in a more standard way by a
registry. The problem is that most registrants just deal with the
registrar and have little contact with the registry. If it was a
"one-stop shop" then we could ensure that all registrants could be
aware of special offers that the registry might offer from time to
time. Right now, most of our registrars don't bother because they
don't have enough registrations to make it worth their while. For
instance, even though we have started offering 1-year
registrations, most of our registrars are not offering that new
feature.
"An example of a service we do offer is our directory of names/
businesses. This is something only the registry can actually offer
as it is across all registrars. But it certainly is not promoted as
a benefit on most of the registrar sites. A registrant would not
necessarily know that this was a benefit of a (our) domain. If we
were a "registrar," we could make sure that this was clear to our
registrants and even provide a free activation promotion if we
wanted to so they could automatically get on the directory. That is
not an option for us now.
"I think the point we can try to make is that this could be an
option for registries - perhaps those below a certain threshold
level of registrations. And if registries would prefer to make use
of the registrar network, that would also be encouraged."
Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:35 AM
To: Paul Stahura; Tim Ruiz
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
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--
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|