RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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

Registrars clearly have the option to decide what gTLDs they want to
offer and that is the way it should be.  But if the only way to sell
registrations is through ICANN-accredited registrars, then some level of
promotion of a TLD would be required for each TLD they elect to support
even if it is as little as listing it on their website.  Otherwise,
there would be virtually no way for the registry to sell names.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:03 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann board address
> Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>