Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and all,

  I for one do not see why any Registrar should feel responsible
in any way for promoting any specific TLD name space?  I
would not do it if I were running a Registrar, unless the
Registry was going to compensate me for doing so, and
handsomely I might add...  So can you explain why you
seem to have this position Chuck?  Or am I misreading
you here?

Further, there is no such a thing with a gTLD or sTLD as
a "Community" specific to that gTLD or sTLD when it
is first introduced.  Any "Community" specific to any
gTLD or sTLD is created by the new or existing Registry.

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--
>                         >
>                         >
>
>
>

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