Here, let me be more helpfull. If you want cheaper prices, this is what you
must do for the $6.00 price.
Financial Considerations for All Registrar Applicants
Before you undertake the registrar accreditation process, please read and
consider the following costs to you. This is not an exhaustive list of all
costs involved in becoming an accredited registrar, but is meant only as a
helpful listing of many the costs registrar applicants may encounter in
connection with the approval process.
TO ICANN:
US$1,000 non-refundable application fee, to be submitted with application.
US$5,000 annual accreditation fee (fixed portion).
US$70,000 in working capital requirement. THIS DOES NOT NEED TO BE PAID TO
ICANN; ICANN requires only that you demonstrate that you have at least this
amount on deposit or in a line of credit before your ICANN accreditation
becomes effective.
Quarterly accreditation fee (variable portion) paid once you begin
registering domain names. This fee represents a portion of ICANN's operating
costs based partly on your share of overall .com, .net, and .org
registrations, so it will vary depending on your volume of names registered
as well as the total volume of all names registered.
TO NSI:
US$10,000 one-time SRS software license fee, to be paid before you can
connect to the SRS system.
US$100,000 performance bond or performance assurance insurance. THIS DOES
NOT NEED TO BE PAID TO NSI. This bond or insurance does require a premium
paid to the bonding company or insurer.
Payment arrangements with NSI must be completed before you can begin
registering domain names. NSI will require that you provide security for the
registry fees you incur, such as by deposit account in a letter of credit.
Questions concerning this arrangement should be addressed to NSI.
Take Control of the Internet and Get Paid for it at
http://referral.jotter.com/join/thiztf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Greenwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Saurabh K. Agarwal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Open SRS is not competitive!
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Saurabh K. Agarwal wrote:
>
> > I am a regular subscriber to the list and have observed the fact that
> > whenevr someone demands to reduce the price or informs the list that
> > somebodyelse is providing the same for less SOME OTHER GUYS (NOT ALWAYS
FROM
> > OPENSRS) COMES AND START SHOUTING "GO TO THAT REGISTRAR" OR "GET THE
ICANN
> > ACCREDITION."
> >
> > It is not fare, This list is meant to discuss the issues with domain
> > registration. and if a RSP raises the issues it must be taken for
> > discussion.
>
> Individuals express their opinions, others respond with theirs. What is
> not fair about that? The possibility that others don't agree with your
> position? Has their been a communication from OpenSRS management that
> such discussion is forbidden?
>
> > I 100 % AGREE that OPENSRS system & support is excellent
>
> No, it isn't. There have been a number of outages in recent history, the
> effects of which were apparently exacerbated by the lack of a 24/7/365
> staffed NOC. What is excellent is that Tucows is very open in
> communicating their situations and resolutions with the members of this
> list.
>
> > and that is why people like us like opensrs only even if somebody else
> > can offer low prices. But it DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO
> > DISCUSS THE PRICING ISSUE HERE.
>
> Domain names are quickly becoming a commodity market. It is also a highly
> volatile one, given the immaturity of the market in question (post-NSI
> monopoly) and the corresponding high volume of new entrants into the
> space.
>
> Entrants into newly-emerging commodity markets usually operate something
> like this: "In order to establish marketshare and place pressure on
> 'oldco', 'newco' announces they are offers their widgets for .02 less than
> 'oldco'. Next week, a new company enters the fray, offers widgets for .02
> less than the previous 'newco'. This cycle of downward pricing pressure
> continues.....
>
> The logical conclusion if every entrant approached a market in this
> fashion?
>
> Mass consolidation, with the couple or few clear market leaders left
> standing raising rates(see 4) below.) "Joe's Car Wash and Shared
> Registration System" will not last(at least in the registrar space)
> by focusing their efforts towards being the absolute cheapest registrar
> out there.
>
> The reasons for this are simple:
>
> 1) In order to achieve success in utilizing a lowest-price strategy
> to gain a significant foothold and/or market dominance in a given space,
> all a new entrant need do is a combination of outspending, outlosing,
> outmarketing and acquiring every credible competitive threat in the space.
> This is a tactic that organizations with deep pockets traditionally
> utilize to great effect.
>
> Ask yourself, in a battle of
> outspending/outlosing/outmarketing/acquistions, who is the
> likely victor, Joe's or say an organization such as Verizon or
> perhaps AT&T?
>
> 2) Subsequent to 1), if Joe's foolishly attempts to compete primarily on
> price point, the quality of service that Joe's is offering inevitably
> diminishes rapidly along with the opportunity to increase penetration
> through obtaining new customers/offering new services while the risk of
> failures, their severity, and their duration correspondingly increase as
> attempts are made to cut all possible expenditures to the bare minimum.
> Such expenditures(in this space) include personnel,services(both those
> that they offer and those which they purchase), marketing, hardware,
> software, and development. In other words, everything that made them
> competitive.
>
> 3) Bottom-feeder customers(those focused strictly on price) will leave
> the minute someone offers them a price that Joe's simply can't match.
> (they also tend to be the most demanding and expensive in customer
> support costs in my experience, but that's another story....)
>
> Once Joe's is perceived by such a price-driven customer base as offering a
> substandard set and/or quality of service relative to other players in the
> space and their pricing, customer attrition occurs. As revenue decreases,
> the downward spiral continues to one of two conclusions: Joe's exits the
> registration space, or gets bought(if they are lucky enough to have a
> sufficent enough customer base remaining.)
>
> 4) Also subsequent to 1), once one or more market leader emerge and feel
> confident they are leaders corrective action against previously
> artifically deflated pricing occurs which return rates to a level that
> offer these organizations profitability, usually as much as possible(those
> pesky investors/shareholders often demand a reasonable ROI....)
>
> All one need to do to find prime examples of this senario is examine
> activity in the telco and ISP industries over the past several
> years(post-telcom deregulation.)
>
> Fortunately, it is apparent that Tucows/OpenSRS is driving towards a much
> more enlightened strategy given their customer base, their position in the
> marketplace, and the depth of their pockets: An open-source
> registration system offering potential first-movers advantages(to date
> no one else I am aware of has offered such a system), maintaining open
> communication with their customers, *competitive* pricing on
registrations,
> and most importantly viewing registration not as their sole reason for
> existence, but rather as adjunct/complementary to their other service
> offerings present(such as the Tucows mirrors) and future. The registration
> services adds "stickyness" to the organization as a whole.
>
> Their other option is of course to immediately drop their registration
> fees immediately to match those of any yahoo offering a lower price while
> quality of service suffers.
>
> Further, the amount of money in question is what, some percentage of $4
> of a $10 fee per year? This when a couple of years ago you couldn't obtain
> a domain name in .com/.net/.org for anything other than $35 a year?
>
> > Without taking the name I would like to inform you all that some of the
> > registrars (from India) are offering prices as low as USD 7.50 even to
> > end-user with some of the FREE FACILITIES e.g. mails, dns, url/ ip
> > forwarding etc.
>
> So? At that price point they're either losing money, or offering crappy
> service. Neither is a sustainable business model barring the possibility
> that they have those sufficiently deep pockets mentioned earlier
> necessary to outlast their competitors, or they are simply building a
> sufficient enough customer base to be acquired. If they don't have the
> funds, they'll cave in under their own weight as demand increases for
> their money-losing services beyond their ability to execute. If they do,
> then why on earth would you suggest playing to their strengths and smaller
> companies weaknesses by attempting to go head to head with them based on
> price?
>
> What types of individuals/organizations are so obsessed by the absolute
> lowest price, and why would anyone want them as a customer?
>
> > But In my opinion it is again a duty of OpenSRS only to protect their
RSPs
> > and they only can enable them to compete in the market.
>
> The duty of any organization other than a non-profit is to make money.
> The "moral obligation" of any such organization is to serve their customer
> base. In my mind, that obligation is best fullfilled by offering a good
> product, superior customer service, and competitive(not necessarily the
> cheapest) pricing. There is no duty for an organization to "protect" their
> customers. Protection is the pervue of police, the government, and the
> mafia.
>
> In short, if you want to be successful, be the best, not the cheapest.
>
>
>
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\
> Patrick Greenwell
> Earth is a single point of failure.
>
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/
>
>
