Re: [ga] price policy

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> I believe there are potential TLD models on the horizon that do not
> resemble anything in the marketplace today. Specifically, I believe
> there are viable business models available where the registry gives the
> domain name away for free. I have raised this point previously in why
> there may be some instances where registrars may not be needed in some
> business models.

Indeed.  In my .ewe business model registrations are A) permanent, i.e. 
they do not expire and B) represented by a digital "bearer" certificate 
i.e. potentially anonymous and transferable simply through transfer of 
the certificate.  Payments would be handed via "credit memos" from a 
third party, thus allowing intermediated, and perhaps anonymous, payments.

Such a system would not have a whois - it would in fact be impossible to 
create one.  Is ICANN about to say that one can not be in the DNS 
business if they do not have whois?  If so, there are big restraint of 
trade issues.

Revenue would be obtained through services (e.g. updating the addresses 
of one's name servers would be a service paid for on an as needed basis) 
rather than periodic rental.

Oh, by the way, I anticipate that a permanent registration would be on 
the order of $25.  Various services, such as name server updates, 
non-repudiation of certificate transfers (could be provided by a third 
party), and other aspects (such as requesting that the name be withdrawn 
from the zone file, but not released) would cost a few dollars each.

The removal of a layer of registrars, periodic renew, transfer, drop 
polling, and whois facilities would vastly reduce the front-office costs 
so that the life-cycle costs would be very low and which could be passed 
through to the buyer who, in turn, would be relieved of the risk and 
cost of forgetting to renew the name every few years.

Oh yes, and I would not require one to adhere to the UDRP.  Again, if 
ICANN wants to make its private law a requirement of entering the 
marketplace there would be some serious restraint of trade issues.

I would, of course, operate the name servers in accord with widely 
accepted written internet technical practices and would most certainly 
abide by any orders from courts of competent jurisdiction.

But I do not believe that ICANN would permit .ewe because it crosses so 
many of ICANN's non-technical taboos.

		--karl--