[lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

[sivasubramanian muthusamy]

Sending it to LAC discuss again in a translatable format in shorter
sentences, following an automated message from transbot-no-reply at icann.org:

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:28 AM Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Olivier
>
> Please see inline:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:21 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> IMHO the "cost recovery basis" is a red herring for the simple reason
>> that it is impossible to calculate what a TLD will really cost ICANN in the
>> long run. Is it just the cost of processing the application, or is it the
>> cost of fixing problems related to that TLD such as the need to have more
>> ICANN compliance staff for more TLDs with a higher than normal amount of
>> misuse of domains under that TLD?
>>
>> The ICANN model is already a tax revenue model where ICANN taxes every
>> domain sold and Registries, Registrars and their agenda collect that money
>> on behalf of ICANN pretty much like VAT.
>>
>
> It need not be considered "a tax revenue model"; it could be named as "DNS
> fees".  DNS fees is payable for every domain, it is required to maintain
> the DNS as a global, stable, secure and fair infrastructure. The fees are
> uniformly subsidized at present level for the benefit of the global
> Internet user;  It is US $ ​0.18 (18 cents) per domain through the
> Registrar and another US $ 0. 25 (25 cents) per domain indirectly collected
> from gTLD registries.
>
> The DNS fees could be more, much more. The DNS fees could even be zero, or
> fixed lower at 10 cents for the first 10,000 names by a new Registry /
> Registrar, and for some exceptionally limited Community TLDs. For
> established TLDs the fees can be set as US $ 1 per Registration in total.
>
> Also, what happens when someone pays US $ 13 million for a Domain Name? Or
> what happens when an unknown sum in an unspoken of transaction for a
> Premium Domain Name? Would ICANN still get US $ 1 as fees? This could even
> be set as a million dollars of premium fees. This is quite a moot point,
> and this could be voluntary for Registries.
>
> The rationale arises from considering, in concept, not as much by legal
> assertion, the following:  All names are "owned" by All Users. ICANN is the
> Trustee. The Registries / Registrars are lessors of the names. The names
> are leased out to the Registrant for a year or two years or ten years or
> even longer. In fairness ICANN could routinely consider and grant
> Registries the extensions to operate. These extension could be routinely
> granted in accordance with business conventions, for Registries to continue
> operations in their respective space. The Registrant will get similar
> considerations to extend the individual name registrations.
>
> ICANN's revenues are disproportionately low. This constrains it's mission
> unacknowledged.
>
>
>> What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs?
>>
>
> Corporations, especially the ones who desire their own TLDs, spend
> hundreds of million to build up their brands, and some brands spend in
> billions on advertising.
>
> The current gTLD application fee is low. This is to make the process
> approachable by applicants across the world, and approachable by small
> applicants and individuals. Brands are on the top end of this spectrum. Yes,
> there could be a different fee structure for brands. Escpecially to brands
> of such global scope that they prefer to have that brand name as global
> gTLD.
>


> Sivasubramanian M
>



>
> I gather that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP,
>> if that has not already been discussed.
>> Kindest regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian M
> Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20180713/6789265e/attachment-0001.html>