ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [net-com] Draft report version 4

On 2004-05-24 09:42:38 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Thomas the new wording on pricing makes explicit reference to
> value - previous wording did not. Have a read of Jeff Neuman's
> input on this - on list - and let me know if you disagre with his
> position.

My point here is that a key part of this group's mission boils down
to giving guidance on what "value" actually means -- what's the
desirables that bidders should be able to deliver if selected? How
should these points be taken into account when the selection takes

In previous language, we had baseline stability + low price.  By
explicitly adding "value" as a criterion for selection, we are
re-inserting that unknown into the equation.  The new draft is,
essentially, bouncing the question back to ICANN staff that the GNSO
was asked to answer.

> The point that price registry to registrar is one thing and
> registrar to registrant another is also relevant.

To quote from Jeff's note, "rather than price, one needs to look at
'value'." All we need to know is that lower registry-to-registrar
pricing gives registrars less supply-side cost per domain name, and
enables more competition on the registrar market -- maybe in terms
of "value" to registrants, maybe in terms of price across all TLDs,
maybe in terms of price for registrations in a specific TLD.

Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>