[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request: discussion of wholesale price for names

[Harold J. Feld]

I confess I am very uncomfortable with asking the Names Council to take 
on a rate case, especially in light of the controversy surrounding 
suggested mandatory pricing of the WLS.

If there is sufficeint interest within the Consticuency, however, I will 
raise the matter.

Harold

todd glassey wrote:

> I would agree Adam that this needs to be revisited. The wholesale prices for
> domains were established last when the world was in its first Internet
> Commerce Frenzy and before the market dropped out from under the Dot Coms...
> Based on that, there still is an ever increasing amount of commerce flowing
> over the Internet, but this does not necessarily make any of the domain's
> that are dot net or dot com more valuable than others.
> 
> I also support a review of the Wholesale Pricing models for all the original
> TLD's
> 
> Todd Glassey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> Cc: <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>; <faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe>;
> <ehchun at peacenet.or.kr>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:22 AM
> Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request: discussion of
> wholesale price for names
> 
> 
> 
>>With the ORG process near complete I think it's time the wholesale
>>price for NET and COM was reviewed. I would like our name council
>>representatives to put discussion of the TLD wholesale price on the
>>agenda for the names council meeting on Sept 12 (if still the date?),
>>please. I know anyone can suggest agenda items, but I'm hoping there
>>will be support for this suggestion from the constituency:  is there?
>>
>>It's been about 3 years since the wholesale price was established,
>>and given that many of the bids for ORG came in with prices lower
>>than the current wholesale price (some significantly lower for bulk),
>>I think there is clear indication that the current price is too high.
>>At least enough indication to warrant an review.
>>
>>I expect any such review would be beyond the competency of the names
>>council to handle (not least, economists needed), but it is an
>>inquiry that I think the council or its successor should shape. It
>>may also be helpful for the ERC's names policy development group to
>>consider whether the processes, etc., it's recommending could handle
>>job like this, or wether a President's committee (or some new
>>hi-level policy development body that acts a little more quickly than
>>the usual pace of the President's committees we known in the past)
>>might be required.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>Adam Peake
>>GLOCOM  Tokyo
>>--
>>_______________________________________________
>>Discuss mailing list
>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> 
> 
>