ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[biz-tld-agreement]


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

Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped

  • To: icann board address <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:31:40 -0700

Chris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  Thank you again Chris.  And indeed it seems from Vini's remarks,
your correct.

kidsearch wrote:

> Good point. Currently they want their cake and eat it too. They want to be
> involved in restraint of free trade by the process they use to approve who
> can run a tld and then want to say they shouldn't regulate elsewhere.
>
> Pretty much looks like ICANN BoD members have a hard time deciding who and
> what ICANN is or represents.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>; "icann board address"
> <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>; <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>; "james tierney"
> <james.tierney@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] The Future of Domain Registry Pricing, if left uncapped
>
> > George and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> > stakeholders/users,
> >
> >   From the back and forth dialoge/litigation on line here, it seems fairly
> > obvious that Mr. Neuman is obviscating intentionally.  Given neustar
> > history in bad behavior as a registry and ICANN's errant awarding
> > of .BIZ in the first place, it is difficult to be trusting of this sort of
> > process or any of it's players by stakeholders/users/registrants.
> >
> > However:
> >
> >   Although I and our members are against arbitrary price controls, it
> > is obvious that with Domain name registration contracts such is needed
> > in order to insure healthy competition unless or until restriction of the
> > introduction of new tld's and new registrars is also at the same time,
> > lifted.  So if ICANN really wants to get out of the pricing business,
> > it should also get out of the determining what and whom is able to
> > run a registry.
> >
> > George Kirikos wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > > --- "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > My point in the full e-mail I sent out (which you only copied a
> > > > snippet
> > > > of in this one) is that we are constrained in the current market
> > > > place
> > >
> > > "current marketplace"? So, you admit, maybe sometime in the future,
> > > i.e. "not current", those constraint won't exist, and you want to be
> > > able to jack up the fees then. Gotcha.
> > >
> > > > because 1 registry operator controls 85% of the market and
> > > > effectively
> > > > sets the price for the unsponsored gTLD market.  If we were to charge
> > > > significantly more for a .BIZ domain name as you insinuated with your
> > > > example (which you also deleted from your response to me), we believe
> > > > people would choose not to register or renew .BIZ domain names.
> > >
> > > If you believe this so strongly, you would have no problems agreeing to
> > > identical caps, or removing from yourself the temptation to do what you
> > > say you would never be able to do by editing the contract.
> > >
> > > > In our conversations and negotiations with ICANN staff over the last
> > > > several years, it was our understanding that ICANN wanted to get out
> > > > of
> > > > the price regulation business and let the market determine pricing.
> > >
> > > So, if the market says that it could bear the cost of sex.biz being
> > > renewed for $100,000/yr, music.biz being $50,000 per year, you would
> > > let the market determine it? Do I have that right?
> > >
> > > If we all believe so strongly in the market, why not let the market
> > > determine the cost of registry services via a rebid every 5 to 10
> > > years, with a fixed price  during the tenure of that contract?
> > > Certainly you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you, to allow
> > > the market to determine that the fair price for .biz names be $2/yr?
> > > You'll allow "the market" to set the price to someone else, but not to
> > > yourself -- do I have that right?
> > >
> > > > price for gTLD domain names.  That said, we fail to see why any
> > > > specific
> > > > or arbitrary price caps would be needed for .BIZ which has such a
> > > > small
> > > > market share.
> > >
> > > Thank you. You answered my prior question, that you DO place a value on
> > > not having the caps (unlike what you stated in the prior email), and
> > > are fighting tooth and nail to keep no restrictions on the ability to
> > > exert pricing power.
> > >
> > > > P.S. In the future, please do not copy people outside of the GA list
> > > > on
> > > > your e-mails.  Particularly if you are only going to copy a snippet
> > > > of a
> > > > prior e-mail thereby eliminating all of the context in which the
> > > > previous statement was made.  It can be misleading to do so.
> > >
> > > I copied the emails to folks who are entirely relevant, and all the
> > > conversations are on the public record on the archived GA list on the
> > > web. While "it can be misleading", you obviously did not say "it was
> > > misleading". I only show snippets in order to prevent these emails from
> > > being 150+ pages long, like the draft contracts which are stealthily
> > > submitted for public comments during August vacations when very few
> > > people are paying attention to ICANN, nor have the inclination to
> > > spending their time reading reams of legal mumbo jumbo.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > George Kirikos
> > > http://www.kirikos.com/
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/414 - Release Date: 8/9/06
> >
> >

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance 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




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