<div dir="auto">Hello,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Sent from my LG G4<br>Kindly excuse brevity and typos</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 8, 2017 9:25 AM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond" <<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com" target="_blank">ocl@gih.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Maureen,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="m_5857267945381450714moz-cite-prefix">On 08/05/2017 06:23, Maureen Hilyard
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Alan
Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Maureen
and Bastiaan have review the .NET Registry Agreement
revisions and are not recommending and ALAC statement.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/000000.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail<wbr>/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/<wbr>2017-April/000000.html</a>.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.or<wbr>g/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/di<wbr>splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisor<wbr>y+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_5857267945381450714mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
ALAC mailing list
<a class="m_5857267945381450714moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="m_5857267945381450714moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a>
At-Large Online: <a class="m_5857267945381450714moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a class="m_5857267945381450714moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>display/atlarge/At-Large+<wbr>Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>display/atlarge/At-Large+<wbr>Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br></blockquote></div></div>