[registrars] RE: PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement
Paul Stahura
stahura at enom.com
Wed Nov 23 15:12:44 UTC 2005
All of us have different "hot button" issues regarding the proposed
agreement.
In eNom's case, for the issues listed in this statement, we are in
complete support on #3 and #4 (price), then less so on #2, and distantly
#1.
A price increase does not affect all registrars the same. A price
increase affects efficient registrars more negatively than inefficient
ones because the price differential among them becomes less of a percent
as the registry price increases. There is a bigger difference between a
system-efficient registrar who can sell names break-even at $7 and one
who is less efficient and who can sell them break-even at $10 ($3
difference, yet one is 30% less than the other) than $14 and $17 (same
$3 difference, yet now one is only 17.6% less). Efficiency becomes less
of a differentiator among competitions both with higher prices. Lower
prices encourage efficiency, higher prices reward the opposite. Not to
mention 1) higher prices are just plain more burdensome on consumers and
2) higher prices mean registration volume, for all of us, will be less
than it otherwise would have been.
Whatever your per-name margin is, whether you are efficient or not, it
will be multiplied by a smaller number.
But for the record, eNom and all its registrars support this entirety of
this statement.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:06 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Bhavin Turakhia; registrars at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] RE: PLEASE confirm your support of this
Statement
Schlund+Partner supports this statement.
Best,
tom
Am 22.11.2005 schrieb Nevett, Jonathon:
> Thanks. Network Solutions, NameSecure, and SRSPlus all support the
statement. Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t at logicboxes.com]
> Sent: Tue Nov 22 21:53:11 2005
> To: Nevett, Jonathon; registrars at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> Just to be clear, apart from posting this to the comments yourself,
please
> also send a confirmation to Jon or myself that you support this
statement.
> Since I will be shortly sending this statement to the ICANN Board as
an
> official statement from the constituency
>
> bhavin
>
>
> _____
>
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:30 PM
> To: registrars at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [registrars] Registrars Statement on .com agreement
>
>
>
> Registrar Colleagues:
>
>
>
> The Registrar Constituency .com Working Group set up by Bhavin has
drafted
> the following statement. Please feel free to sign on to the statement
and
> to post it to the ICANN website -- to post comments, please send an
e-mail
> to: settlement-comments at icann.org.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> We, the undersigned registrars, recommend against ICANN signing the
>
> proposed .com Registry Agreement. The following reflects those
issues
>
> that are of foremost concern to registrars:
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. New Registry Services
>
>
>
> The proposed .com contract locks ICANN and VeriSign in for three years
>
> on a version of the consensus policy covering the standards and
process
>
> for consideration of new registry services. The new registry services
>
> consensus policy process that recently was approved by the ICANN board
>
> is untested, and it is likely that the ICANN community will need to
>
> refine and improve it after it is implemented. A three year lock will
>
> unnecessarily handcuff ICANN and the ICANN community.
>
>
>
> We recommend the deletion of Sections 3.1(b)(v)(B) and 3.1(b)(v)(C),
and
>
> allowing the existing ICANN policy development and refinement process
to
>
> be used during the term of the agreement.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. Registry Agreement Renewal
>
>
>
> According to its own Bylaws and the Memorandum of Understanding
between
>
> ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, one of ICANN's
core
>
> missions is to promote competition. We understand that the current
.com
>
> contract contains a "presumptive renewal" provision, which by its
nature
>
> hinders competition. The proposed .com contract, however, goes much
>
> farther than the existing contract by strengthening the presumptive
>
> renewal and termination provisions on behalf of VeriSign, thereby
making
>
> it virtually impossible for VeriSign to lose the .com registry and
>
> impossible to reap the benefits of competition. VeriSign should be
>
> appointed as the administrator of the .com registry, not its owner.
>
>
>
> We recommend reverting from Section 4.2 of the proposed .com agreement
>
> to the renewal terms of Section 25 of the current .com agreement,
which
>
> requires a six month review of a "Renewal Proposal" provided by
VeriSign
>
> and only under terms that are in "substantial conformity with the
terms
>
> of registry agreements between ICANN and operators of other open TLDs.
>
> . ." ICANN also should strengthen the termination provisions
currently
>
> contained in Section 6.1 of the proposed agreement by using the
relevant
>
> text from Sections 16(B-E) of the current agreement.
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. Registry Fees
>
>
>
> The proposed .com contract would permit VeriSign to unilaterally raise
>
> registration fees by 7% per year. The existing .com contract and all
>
> gTLD registry agreements (other than the .net agreement with VeriSign,
>
> which was entered into without community input in violation of ICANN's
>
> Bylaws) require the registries to cost-justify any price increases.
In
>
> an industry where the economics suggest that fees should be going down
>
> when there is competition, it is particularly troublesome and
>
> anti-competitive to grant a monopolist or a single source provider the
>
> unilateral right to increase costs without justification.
>
> Unfortunately, these fee increases would result in cost increases to
>
> individual registrants. We note that in the recent competitive
process
>
> for .net, VeriSign significantly lowered its registry fees. There is
no
>
> reason for unilateral cost increases for the larger .com registry.
>
>
>
> We recommend that the Board delete the current text of Section
>
> 7.3(d)(ii) and replace it with Section 22(A) of the current .com
>
> agreement requiring VeriSign to justify and ICANN to approve any
>
> proposed fee increase. If there is a dispute between ICANN and
VeriSign
>
> over a cost increase, ICANN should have the right to seek competitive
>
> price proposals from other registry operators to ensure that the ICANN
>
> community receives the benefits of competition.
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. New ICANN Fees
>
>
>
> ICANN and VeriSign propose a new ICANN fee that would be assessed on
>
> VeriSign and passed on to the registrars. This fee would result in
>
> excess of approximately $150 million dollars to ICANN, and would be an
>
> end run around the existing ICANN budget approval process. As
proposed,
>
> ICANN staff has removed an important check on the ICANN budget
process.
>
> All ICANN fees that impact registrants should be subject to the ICANN
>
> budget approval process and should not only be the subject of
>
> negotiations between VeriSign and ICANN.
>
>
>
> In addition to the changes suggested in number 3 above, we recommend
the
>
> removal of Sections 7.3(g-h) in the proposed contract. Any
transaction
>
> fees that ICANN needs to collect from registrars (and hence
registrants)
>
> should be assessed through the current transaction fees charged by
ICANN
>
> to registrars and be subject to the existing budget approval process.
>
>
>
>
>
> While we understand the desire to finalize the litigation, it should
not
>
> be done so without a sufficient review process nor at the expense of
>
> major tenets of ICANN's mission. In its current form, it is a bad
>
> settlement for ICANN, the ICANN community, and the public-at-large.
We,
>
> therefore, urge the ICANN Board to take advantage of the six month
>
> review of a "Renewal Proposal" contemplated in the existing .com
>
> agreement, which doesn't expire until November 2007. The Board should
>
> use this time to review the complicated contracts in their entirety,
>
> have a public comment period commensurate with the importance of the
>
> issue, and make the changes necessary to improve the agreement.
>
Gruss,
tom
(__)
(OO)_____
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w
More information about the registrars
mailing list