RE: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

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

I never said there was.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:31 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann board address
> Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>