[ALAC] Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement

Mon May 8 10:04:33 UTC 2017

Oops so it means I sure interpreted that section wrongly then. However i
wonder what this section was talking about:

"The price to ICANN-accredited registrars for new and renewal domain name
registrations and for transferring a domain name registration from one
ICANN-accredited registrar to another, shall not exceed a total fee of
US$8.95"

So it perhaps was referring to current pricing as Bastiaan noted and that
pricing can then be increaed by 10% every year till 2023. Wow! that is
really really huge fees there! I guess its the more reason why ALAC should
comment then

Regards

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Bastiaan Goslings <
bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:

> I wonder where authoritative numbers are to be found with regard to price
> increases over the years - and how these compare to other gTLD’s
>
> I took the 2012 $7.85 from https://icannwiki.org/Verisign
>
> 'In January 2012, Verisign raised the wholesale prices of .com and .net
> registration by 7%, increasing the price from $7.34 to $7.85. Registrars
> generally passed the price increase on to their customers.'
>
> However e.g. https://onlinedomain.com/2017/01/19/domain-name-news/net-
> domain-name-registrations-renewals-will-cost-com-february-1st/ mentions a
> different 2012 price and also that ‘On February 1st, 2017 it goes from
> $7.46 to $8.20 ($0.74)’
>
> (That a.o. tells me the current price is not capped at $5.40, it
> supposedly has been increasing annually by 10%)
>
>
> > On 8 May 2017, at 11:07, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > From my quick read of the agreement it seem to be that a renewal option
> is already existing (ofcourse subject to compliance of certain requirement)
> and nothing major is changing in that section (ref: section 4.2). I think
> it's just appropriate to renew if all is fine, I don't see why things
> should be opened to competitive bidding.
> >
> > Secondly I am not sure where the commenter's pricing forecast comes from
> but my reading of section 7.3 seem to imply a maximum price cap of 8.95 USD
> with maximum of 10% annual increase from current cap of 5.4. I guess the
> question to answer is whether that maximum isn't too much considering it
> was initially and currently capped at 5.4USD. I personally think it is too
> high as that allows for over 50% increase and 100% of the increase actually
> goes to the operator (ICANN remains at .75USD). I do not see why pricing
> must increase especially since there is/will be volume increase in .net and
> maintenance cost usually don't increase significantly as a result of more
> registration. I think justification for such price increase needs to be
> made to ICANN before implementation.
> >
> > Considering that the end users are ultimately the registrants who will
> largely feel the effect of this pricing, I will suggest that we raise our
> concern about the increase.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Sent from my LG G4
> > Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> >
> > On May 8, 2017 9:25 AM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> > Dear Maureen,
> >
> > I am sorry but your comment got me to raise my eyebrow: we wouldn't be
> expecting an end-user to analyse these costs, but we would expect ALAC
> members to. That's why they're elected as ALAC members. If we start
> reasoning that topics in ICANN are out of scope for the ALAC because an end
> user would not be expected to analyse the topic or be directly involved in
> the topic, then we can pretty much close shop because the majority of
> topics that are treated at ICANN are complex and need prior knowledge. I
> fully subscribe to the point made by Kaili that ALAC members are the end
> user's lawyers in the ICANN process.
> >
> > On the .NET agreement, it is strange that, once again, the agreement
> would be just renewed and not put to a bidding process. And the commenter
> makes a good point about anti-trust laws. But for some reason, the US
> government has closed its eyes on this industry such that there is one
> major Registry player and one major Registrar player. It it for the ALAC to
> call for action? That's the question you need to ask yourselves. It is
> perhaps the fundamental question for this TLD renewal. It requires answers
> to two questions: one that requires skills and knowledge; the other that
> requires a discussion and a choice.
> >
> > 1. Skills and knowledge: in the case of .NET, are conditions fulfilled
> for an automatic renewal of the Registry agreement, if there is such an
> option?
> > 2. Discussion and choice: if conditions are not met, or there is no such
> automatic renewal option, then does the ALAC want to pick this up and make
> a point, bearing in mind this could start a process with an uncertain end?
> >
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> > On 08/05/2017 06:23, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
> >> But really Alan, would we be expecting the ordinary end-user to be
> analysing these costs and other sections of the document in a similar way,
> without any prior expert knowledge about the ICANN contractual bidding
> process, previous contracts and other details you have outlined? Its
> outside of our scope.
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >> Maureen and Bastiaan have review the .NET Registry Agreement revisions
> and are not recommending and ALAC statement.
> >>
> >> There is one comment already pointing out that there the contract (both
> the current one and the revised one) allow for a 10$ increase in the price
> to the registrar per year. Note that for New gTLDs, pricing is out of scope
> of ICANN registry agreements. Based on the 2011 price of $4.65 and the 2017
> price of 8.20, it would appear that they have used the full 10% over the
> term of the last current agreement. The 10% rate is the same as that in the
> current .ORG agreement. .COM presumably due to the size of the registrant
> base is price-capped.
> >>
> >> The comment also says the contract should not be renewed, but rather
> put out for competitive bidding - something that is not within ICANN's
> ability to decide (and confirmed by the statement calling upon government
> anti-trust action). See https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-
> renewal-20apr17/2017-April/000000.html.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ALAC mailing list
> >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/
> display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ______________________________
> >> _________________
> >> ALAC mailing list
> >>
> >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >>
> >> At-Large Online:
> >> http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >>
> >> ALAC Working Wiki:
> >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170508/7d222749/attachment.html>