Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and all,

  Respectfully I disagree with your conclusion here Chuck.  There
is nothing stopping or prohibiting Registries from promoting their
TLD.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >

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