<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Karl,<br>
<br>
you raise a very valid point. The very ALAC Statement that is under
scrutiny actually has a paragraph that supports the raising of per
domain registry fees, currently standing at an incredibly low price,
when one sees the huge mark-up that registries and registrars charge
end users for registering these domain names.<br>
Whenever the ALAC has suggested price caps to the sale of domain
names, we have been told that ICANN does not have a remit in setting
price caps. In fact, to my knowledge, none of the latest round of
new gTLDs have any price caps.<br>
<br>
I agree with you that the price of domain names for end users to
register is too high.<br>
But I also believe that there is also a floor level to the price of
domain names as we've seen that the $1 or $0.50 bulk price of domain
names has only been taken advantage of by spammers and malware
originators that look for throwaway domains they can use and ditch
at a fast pace. <br>
<br>
What should be a just price for a domain name? Well, it would be
good if consumers answered this question. Perhaps this is a task we
should be taking upon ourselves.<br>
But then, you have the significance of domain name after-market
re-selling, which is the bread and butter of domainers. Do you want
to outlaw/regulate this? This takes place at another level. I find
it ironic that one would enforce a price cap on a Registry and let
Registrars and their resellers practice open pricing of a free
market economy.<br>
In fact, ICANN can only enforce anything in its contracts. Already
it has very little or no power to oversee or regulate resellers. No
power to oversee or regulate domainers.<br>
<br>
In short - the whole system is skewed and has become a ground open
to abuse. For a change to take place, the system needs:<br>
a. the GNSO to agree on policy changes to give ICANN the power to
assume powers for regulating the market. Likelihood of this to
happen: 0%<br>
b. if by miracle, (a) gets approved, it needs Board approval.
Likelihood for this to happen is probably quite good (50%+).<br>
c. the changes need to be brought into contracts with Registrars and
Registries, with negotiations taking place behind closed doors, with
no independent oversight from anyone, not even the ability to have
ONE at-large observer in the room --- because we are told that these
are business contract negotiations that a confidential. Probability
of the changes to ICANN's powers to regulate being accepted in the
negotiations: 0%<br>
<br>
With two of the above three, in the path of contractual changes,
being 0%, the probability for the market abuse to be addressed by
ICANN is 0%.<br>
<br>
And that's how, eventually, markets will be regulated on a national
basis by sovereign countries being asked by consumer groups to clean
up the market nationally. IMHO it will be a triple catastrophe:<br>
<br>
1. it will show a failure of the private sector led
multi-stakeholder model to address consumer issues<br>
2. because of (1) it will make the regulatory environment of domain
name sales a lot more complicated than it currently is, and will
reinforce calls for national appropriation of "critical Internet
resources" - expanding into IP addresses, DNS, the Root etc. We can
effectively kiss goodbye to our dreams of a multi-stakeholder future<br>
3. because of (2) it will make ICANN irrelevant - which will go down
as the one and only multi-stakeholder administration of public
resources that ended up as a resounding failure.<br>
<br>
I would hate (3) to happen, because that brings us to the slippery
slope of a dim future with a government run Internet, working
bilaterally with the global multinational industrial complex to run
an Internet devoid of human rights, freedom of speech and all of the
core values which the Internet has thrived on.<br>
<br>
That's why, whilst I share the frustration about ICANN's systemic
failures, I keep on thinking that our only option is to continue the
fight and make it work.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/06/2019 01:19, Karl Auerbach
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ae1c231d-a0aa-b4ac-9d3e-9cfcab3a7871@cavebear.com">I
find it interesting that the notion of 'removing the price cap" is
being read to suggest an increase in registry fee amounts.
<br>
<br>
But why? Any back-of-the-envelope calculation for TLDs such as
.com or .org strongly suggests that the existing registry fee
levels are dramatically too high - and cumulate well past a
$billion a year in monopoly rents far in excess of actual costs.
<br>
<br>
Running a registry is largely a back room operation - some
database transaction servers and a cloud of actual DNS name
servers.
<br>
<br>
Since ICANN was formed the cost of those things has fallen and
fallen and fallen. And the cost of much of the infrastructure -
such as Verisign's fortress data center(s) have been amortized
years ago.
<br>
<br>
As far as I know there has never been an audit, much less a
serious audit that distinguishes between real operational costs
and Potemkin Village corporate image fluff costs, of actual costs
of providing legacy TLD registry services.
<br>
<br>
One would think that an audit - published to the public - would be
warranted before any consideration of unleashing unbounded upwards
prices onto captive legacy TLD users?
<br>
<br>
--karl--
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
At-Large mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
<br>
<br>
At-Large Official Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing
list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of
Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the
Mailman link above to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
and so on.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>