<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
almost. my comment was not limited to this request but as a general
statement.
On 5-Sep-06, at 5:54 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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--
> >
> >
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|