Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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

If I understand your question Elliot, I think I already answered.  This request is for small gTLDs only.  VeriSign is not requesting a change in the requirement to use ICANN accredited registrars.

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	elliot noss [mailto:enoss@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:	Tuesday, September 05, 2006 05:45 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Gomes, Chuck
Cc:	Paul Stahura; Tim Ruiz; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
Subject:	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--
>         >
>         >
>
>