Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul  and all,

  None of your list of lessons learned were really lessons learned
simply because I and many others when these sTLD's were being
considered were by ever considered viable or were going to
"work out".  The only one that  was broadly considered that
would "work out" was the .WEB gTLD.  And ICANN rejected
it because of personal conflicts with Chris Ambler and some
ICANN staff.

  Further, what does any of this have to do with Tiered (Variable)
Pricing?

  Further still, I have always agreed that any Registry should be
able to act as it's own Registrar, but must not restrict other
Registrar's from registering in any TLD name space.  However
any TLD Registry should have a means by which it can address
abusive Registrar's as many of us have seen with Register.com,
for instance.  Also any Registrar should have a means by which
it can address abusive Registry behavior.


Paul Stahura wrote:

>    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--
>                 >
>                 >
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827