RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

I think co.uk is not for profit too.

 

________________________________

From: kidsearch [mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:51 PM
To: Paul Stahura; Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Karl Auerbach
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

 

So, what do these successful TLDs have in common?  Some are for-profit,
and some are not, 

 

Which successful tlds are not for profit?

 

I agree with you that the only tlds being approved are ones that will
never be competitive.

 

 

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Paul Stahura <mailto:stahura@xxxxxxxx>  

	To: Gomes, Chuck <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; Tim Ruiz
<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>  

	Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Karl Auerbach <mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


	Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:51 PM

	Subject: RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

	 

	I agree we've learned a lot since back then, but in some sense I
also think we've seemed to have learned nothing.

	Did we really learn that .areo and .museum would not work out,
or did we really already know/suspect that?

	Agreed, that each person has their own definition of "work out",
but I think that (what is a successful TLD) is just another thing, after
all these experimental (in my opinion) TLDs, that we didn't learn and
still don't know.  

	 

	In my mind, .com is the most successful TLD, followed by .net,
.org, and some country code TLDs, and maybe one from the first round.

	I think that is obvious, though you can say ".museum" satisfies
the needs of its internet community, and I would agree with you.

	But what is the size of that community compared to the entire
internet?  not much.

	So, what do these successful TLDs have in common?  Some are
for-profit, and some are not, so that isn't it.  Some are RRP some are
EPP, that's isn't it. Some are US-based, some are not.  One is
third-level.  Some are newer some are older.

	Hmmm.... what can it be? 

	They are all open, not "sponsored" or "restricted".  

	OPEN.

	That's one thing we've learned.

	It seems to me that the "sponsored" and "restricted" (I call
them "hobbled") TLDs need the most "flexibility" as you call it,
tweaking, changes, etc post root-insertion.

	That's another thing we've learned.

	Why do we keep doing those kind? Because for some reason, so
far, in order to get in the root, you need to propose a "hobbled" TLD
(such as one for a micro-community).

	That's a third thing we've learned.

	Then we all are so surprised when these TLDs say they need
flexibility, changes (like not separating registry and registrar),
whatever, in order to "better serve their community".

	I think even they (the "sponsors") didn't learn that... My guess
is that they already knew, or at least suspected, it.

	 

	But anyway....

	I'm curious as to which registries those quotes are from.

	I know for sure that more than a few large registrars are
extremely interested in "call-center-intensive market" contrary to the
2nd quote.

	Look at the call center size of GoDaddy, register.com and
Network Solutions.

	 

	Also, please explain further the first right of refusal for
registrars you mention below.

	 

	 

	 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
	Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:35 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--
		        >
		        >

	
________________________________


	No virus found in this incoming message.
	Checked by AVG Free Edition.
	Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/438 - Release Date:
9/5/06