RE: [gnso-whois-wg] A few questions

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

It's amusing to hear registrars demanding the right to
offer what amounts to monopoly services at "market
rates".  

Ross, if you enjoy a monopoly with respect to the data
that's exclusively in your possession as a registrar,
then "market rates" don't exist as there is no
competitive arena in which market forces will dictate
the rise or fall of pricing for services rendered.

Via the OPOC proposal, you will have a monopoly on
certain data.  Is it now the registrar view that
monopolies need not be subject to price controls?

... I'm sure that VeriSign will love hearing about
your new position :)



--- Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Whether or not you agree with icann's polcy of
> allowing registrars to charge market rates for the
> services they offer is interesting, but completely
> ot of scope for this working group. Tha is unless I
> missed something in my read of our terms of
> reference. Pricing is a matter of private contract
> between the registrars, ICANN and in some cases the
> registries. Those contracts now permit us to charge
> market rates for the services we offer.
> 
> Also  note that impact assessments are not price
> regulatory instruments, they aresimply statements of
> imapct by affected parties which allow the council
> to more thoroughy understand the net benefit of
> their policy recoomendations.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Doug Isenberg"
> <disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: 22/07/07 15:01
> Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] A few questions
> 
> Hi Ross,
> 
> I'm not about to agree to giving registrars a carte
> blanche to set whatever prices they choose for this
> service. 
> 
> As impact assessments must accompany any proposed
> policy, I see this topic (ongoing registrant abuse
> by
> way of onerous registrar fees) as very much in
> scope.
> 
> .... and if you don't think that registrar fees are
> onerous, consider the $260 that some
> registrars/resellers charge for the Redemption Grace
> Period fee (that only costs them $40).
> 
> regards,
> Danny
> 
> 
> --- Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Danny Younger wrote:
> > > (1) For the sake of curiosity, how many billion
> > > look-ups are now performed monthly?  
> > > 
> > > (2) Under the OPOC proposal, how many monthly
> > look-ups
> > > would be anticipated?  
> > > 
> > > (3) Multiplying a "nominal fee" times the number
> > of
> > > expected look-ups will yield about how many
> > > million/billion dollars for the registrar
> > community? 
> > 
> > When I brought up the issue of fees, I did not use
> > the term "cost 
> > recovery" (although Tom has). Consistent with
> > ICANN's recent moves to 
> > stay out of the pricing game in the registry
> > business, and their 
> > consistent position that registrar level pricing
> be
> > set by market 
> > forces, I see no reason why the provision of these
> > services should be 
> > different. This working group is proposing a new
> set
> > of services, to 
> > which each registrar should be permitted to price
> in
> > any manner they see 
> > fit.
> > 
> > The question of "who gets how much of what" is
> > entirely irrelevent for 
> > this working group and vastly over-reaches ICANN's
> > scope of policy 
> > making responsibility.
> > 
> > -ross
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>        
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out
> Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
> 
> 
> 
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play 
Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/