<html>
<body>
Thank you all for this great discussion. Maureen has kindly transcribed
most of these e-mails to the WIki and I have just added the last two.
<br><br>
PLEASE let's move the discussion there -
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/l9rRAw" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/x/l9rRAw</a>.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 08/05/2017 09:49 AM, Alberto Soto wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I think we have several problems
on this topic, perhaps in others as well.<br>
- We are lacking time to read all of the reference documentation, at
least to me, and limit my participation.<br>
- On several occasions a specialist is required to clarify this
documentation.<br>
- In particular with this topic: we are missing data and that increases
the reading time by adding the search time. And after searching, we find
that specific information is not available.<br>
<br>
I think with the suggestion to dump our opinions in the wiki, we start
with facilitating the analysis.<br>
Perhaps we should require the missing information (when the terms allow)
to the corresponding constituent unit. But also suggest as a policy that
those missing data today, be recorded by that constituency, somewhere,
and when necessary we can access it. For example, the evolution of
prices.<br>
Another issue to be discussed, as it affects end users, and also ICANN:
this is how ICANN allows according to its contracts, the increase of the
cost of a gtld, and the amount to be received remains fixed.<br>
<br>
Regards!<br>
<br>
Alberto<br>
<br>
<b>De:</b> alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>] <b>En nombre de </b>Seun
Ojedeji<br>
<b>Enviado el:</b> Monday, May 8, 2017 7:05 AM<br>
<b>Para:</b> Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net><br>
<b>CC:</b> ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>
<b>Asunto:</b> Re: [ALAC] Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry
Agreement<br>
<br>
Oops so it means I sure interpreted that section wrongly then. However i
wonder what this section was talking about:<br><br>
"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"<br>
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<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Bastiaan Goslings
<<a href="mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net">
bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>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<br><br>
<dd>I took the 2012 $7.85 from
<a href="https://icannwiki.org/Verisign">
https://icannwiki.org/Verisign</a><br><br>
<dd>'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.'<br><br>
<dd>However e.g.
<a href="https://onlinedomain.com/2017/01/19/domain-name-news/net-domain-name-registrations-renewals-will-cost-com-february-1st/">
https://onlinedomain.com/2017/01/19/domain-name-news/net-domain-name-registrations-renewals-will-cost-com-february-1st/</a>
mentions a different 2012 price and also that ‘On February 1st, 2017
it goes from $7.46 to $8.20 ($0.74)’<br><br>
<dd>(That a.o. tells me the current price is not capped at $5.40, it
supposedly has been increasing annually by 10%)<br><br>
<br>
<dd>> On 8 May 2017, at 11:07, Seun Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Hello,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 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.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 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.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 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.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Regards<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
<dd>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> On May 8, 2017 9:25 AM, "Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond"
<<a href="mailto:ocl@gih.com">ocl@gih.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dd>> Dear Maureen,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 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>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 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>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 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>
<dd>> 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>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Kindest regards,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Olivier<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> On 08/05/2017 06:23, Maureen Hilyard wrote:<br>
<dd>>> 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>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dd>>> Maureen and Bastiaan have review the .NET Registry Agreement
revisions and are not recommending and ALAC statement.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> 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>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> 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">
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/000000.html</a>
.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> Alan<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> _______________________________________________<br>
<dd>>> ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd>>>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>>> ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> ______________________________<br>
<dd>>> _________________<br>
<dd>>> ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> At-Large Online:<br>
<dd>>>
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> ALAC Working Wiki:<br>
<dd>>>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> _______________________________________________<br>
<dd>> ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd>>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>> ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br>
<dd>> _______________________________________________<br>
<dd>> ALAC mailing list<br>
<dd>>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>> ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dl>
<dd>Seun Ojedeji,<br>
<dd>Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br>
<dd>web:
<a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<dd>Mobile: +2348035233535<br>
<dd>alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453">
</a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng">
seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
</i>
<dl>
<dd>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
action!<br><br>
</dl>
</dl> </blockquote></body>
</html>