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

[Milton Mueller]

You are proposing more detailed regulation of 
registry prices, however a clearer and simpler alternative
is simply to define a method for regular and open
entry into registry services (i.e., new TLDs), so
that competition defines the wholesale as well as
the retail price. 

>>> "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net> 08/21/02 10:52AM >>>
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 
>

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss