RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

You may wish to look at the real world metrics of when Afilias' tried such a
free marketing approach. Unfortunately, this type of marketing approach by
Registries is no longer economically viable based upon the current registry
agreement. When Afilias tried such a marketing approach it was under the old
registry contract which was based on a fixed fee cost recovery model.
Unfortunately ICANN's current per domain name transaction tax is imposed at
both the registry and registrar level. A lasting reminder from the Reign of
Twomey.

Best regards,

Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:07 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs


Following up to myself, Jeff, I'm interested in whether registrars are
measurably motivated by margin.

If, for the purposes of discussion, you could lower NeuStar's price to
zero, for say three quarters, do you think that that would have a
measurable effect on .biz's absolute market share, relative to prior
quarter .biz volumes, and relative market share, vis a vis the other
price-unchanged registries, during some part of that period, say the
2nd quarter?

What if, and for the purposes of discussion, all CNOI registries are
nominally priced at $6, but the B registry is nominally priced a -$6,
that is, from out of the NANPA surplus NeuStar paid its registrars the
six bucks, rather than charge them the six. Do you think that that
would have a significant effect on registrar promotion of the .biz
inventory over CNOI inventories?

My question is not intended to retard, or advance, yours or anyone
else's position of advocacy, just to see if cause and effect can be
identified on this rather small point.

Eric