[CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...

Jonathan Robinson jrobinson at afilias.info
Tue Jun 2 15:17:56 UTC 2015

Chuck and others,


Confirmed, we requested this of Xavier and the finance team and followed up with a clarifying questions call on Wed last week.


I believe a full reply from ICANN finance is imminent.





From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: 01 June 2015 19:53
To: Greg Shatan; Milton L Mueller
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...




I think it does make sense to ‘create a budget for Post-Transition IANA’.  An important step of that would to develop cost estimates for the proposed solution and I believe that that is what Jonathan & Lise have requested from Xavier and the Finance Team.  That of course will need to be refined as we further define details of the proposal.




From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 12:53 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...


I agree with Milton that the IANA costs are most likely to up if we effectively grant ICANN an IANA monopoly by erecting barriers to entry and anointing ICANN as the sole source provider.  The essence of monopoly power is the ability to raise prices and keep them there due to a lack of actual or potential competition.  Actual or potential competitors provide the necessary pressure to limit prices and foster innovation.  (I can't say I've spent 30 years studying regulation of monopolies, but in the first 12 years of my practice, I spent at least as much time as an antitrust lawyer as I did as an IP/technology lawyer.)


On a separate but related point, would it make sense to try and create a budget for Post-Transition IANA, or at least to identify the additional cost components (if any)?  I find that speaking in specifics tends to eliminate many of the worst-case scenarios that still seem possible when speaking in generalities.




On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

I would challenge the idea that costs will inevitably go up - though it depends on the institutional structure we put into place.
Costs certainly _will_ go up if we continue to see the IANA services as something that only the current operator can do and erect enormous procedural barriers to having an RFP or a change of service providers. I can tell you that from 30 years of experience studying regulation of monopolies based on cost-recovery instead of competitive models. There may already be elements of current IANA services that could be considered gold-plating. On the other hand if the review process is attentive to cost and will at least look at other bids once in a while I suspect that costs can be contained. This doesn't mean that cost is the only factor to take into consideration in selecting an IFO, of course, just to head off any cheap shots.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:41 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org

> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: []
> Initial ...
> Check, are you worried about registry fees going up:
> * Capriciouslty?
> * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays,
> and/or may rise significantly in the future?
> If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than
> today?
> If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure
> we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's
> model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI,
> something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs
> may rise even higher.
> I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future
> changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's
> primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible.
> So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here
> and what are you trying to protect against?
> Alan
> At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part
> >of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will
> >be much higher.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri
> Doria
> >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM
> >To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> >Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: []
> Initial ...
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put
> > that aside and ask you a question Avri:  How would you propose
> > addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees
> > (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately
> > registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid
> > mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
> >
> >As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?
> >
> >Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues
> >such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated.  Seems like a
> really
> >good exercise that I would watch with interest.  I just do not see this
> >topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which
> should
> >be satisfied with a commitment  that ICANN will pay IANA's way as
> >needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond.  It is the
> price
> >of ICANN holding stewardship.  As between parent and ward.
> >
> >The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN
> budget
> >issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not
> need
> >to lumped in with the transition itself.
> >
> >
> >avri
> >
> >
> >---
> >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >http://www.avast.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >_______________________________________________
> >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150602/f5d2a803/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list