Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
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 $4.65 and the 2017 price of 8.20, it would appear that they have used the full 10% over the term of the last current agreement. The 10% rate is the same as that in the current .ORG agreement. .COM presumably due to the size of the registrant base is price-capped. The comment also says the contract should not be renewed, but rather put out for competitive bidding - something that is not within ICANN's ability to decide (and confirmed by the statement calling upon government anti-trust action). See https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/00000.... Alan
But really Alan, would we be expecting the ordinary end-user to be analysing these costs and other sections of the document in a similar way, without any prior expert knowledge about the ICANN contractual bidding process, previous contracts and other details you have outlined? Its outside of our scope. On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Maureen and Bastiaan have review the .NET Registry Agreement revisions and are not recommending and ALAC statement.
There is one comment already pointing out that there the contract (both the current one and the revised one) allow for a 10$ 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@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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
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@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@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/00000... <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/00000...>.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
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@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@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@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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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)
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-registr... 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@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@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@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/00000....
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
______________________________ _________________ ALAC mailing list
ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
(& re the ‘On February 1st, 2017 it goes from $7.46 to $8.20 ($0.74)’: that is the $8.20 mentioned in 7.3?)
On 8 May 2017, at 11:48, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@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-registr... 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@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@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@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/00000....
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
______________________________ _________________ ALAC mailing list
ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
I think we have several problems on this topic, perhaps in others as well. - We are lacking time to read all of the reference documentation, at least to me, and limit my participation. - On several occasions a specialist is required to clarify this documentation. - 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. I think with the suggestion to dump our opinions in the wiki, we start with facilitating the analysis. 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. 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. Regards! Alberto De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Seun Ojedeji Enviado el: Monday, May 8, 2017 7:05 AM Para: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> CC: ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement 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@ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@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-registr... 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@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@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@gih.com <mailto:ocl@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@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@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/00000....
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA...)
______________________________ _________________ ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@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+(ALA...)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
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. PLEASE let's move the discussion there - https://community.icann.org/x/l9rRAw. Alan At 08/05/2017 09:49 AM, Alberto Soto wrote:
I think we have several problems on this topic, perhaps in others as well. - We are lacking time to read all of the reference documentation, at least to me, and limit my participation. - On several occasions a specialist is required to clarify this documentation. - 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.
I think with the suggestion to dump our opinions in the wiki, we start with facilitating the analysis. 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. 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.
Regards!
Alberto
De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Seun Ojedeji Enviado el: Monday, May 8, 2017 7:05 AM Para: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> CC: ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
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 <<mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>bastiaan.goslings@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 gTLDâs
I took the 2012 $7.85 from <https://icannwiki.org/Verisign>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/>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 âOn February 1st, 2017 it goes from $7.46 to $8.20 ($0.74)â
(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 <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@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" <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl@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 <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@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>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-net-renewal-20apr17/2017-April/000000.html.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
______________________________ _________________ ALAC mailing list
<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki:
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Olivier I agree that the ALAC should make a meaningful contribution to statements that come out of the system for At-Large commentary. But surely even ALAC members can't be expected to be experts on some of these topics that require specialist input. Therefore, having not heard anything from anyone, we made our first call. Surprisingly it has needed this to actually kickstart some discussion but it would be great if you could please put your comments *on the designated workspace* <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Prop...> so that we can more easily coordinate a statement from the ALAC by the 30th May. Bastiaan and I are also involved with Andrei, Holly, Leon and Alberto, as well as Satish and Evan from outside of the ALAC in another ALAC statement on gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP that is due before the 22nd. This has priority. But we still need more contributors with some expertise in the areas of study for the various work tasks, especially Work Task #3 questions on String Contention Objections and Disputes. <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Work+Track+3+-+GNSO+Community+Comment+2+%28CC2%29+on+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+Policy+Development+Process>A separate workspace has been set up for each set of questions and I am sure that general responses would be appreciated by the leads in these sections. For both papers, although it has taken a while to finally get some feedback which I really appreciate, the team and I will work on what contributions we receive to coordinate statements from the ALAC that reflects your concerns. But it does require everyone to contribute if they have expertise in the subject matter. Truthfully, these are not subject areas I know much about, but as the penholder I am willing to coordinate the comments that arrive into a statement we can pass on. Please use the workspaces. Maureen :) On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@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@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@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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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+(ALA...)
Folks Maureen has a very good point. The issues that face ICANN are complex and, even those of us who have been in more than a few GNSO WG are not au fait with all of the issues. that’s why we have Confluence and why all comments should go there, so that the pen holder can learn from everyone with stuff to say. We all need the experience and wisdom of each other Holly On 8 May 2017, at 7:49 pm, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Olivier
I agree that the ALAC should make a meaningful contribution to statements that come out of the system for At-Large commentary. But surely even ALAC members can't be expected to be experts on some of these topics that require specialist input. Therefore, having not heard anything from anyone, we made our first call. Surprisingly it has needed this to actually kickstart some discussion but it would be great if you could please put your comments on the designated workspace so that we can more easily coordinate a statement from the ALAC by the 30th May.
Bastiaan and I are also involved with Andrei, Holly, Leon and Alberto, as well as Satish and Evan from outside of the ALAC in another ALAC statement on gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP that is due before the 22nd. This has priority. But we still need more contributors with some expertise in the areas of study for the various work tasks, especially Work Task #3 questions on String Contention Objections and Disputes. A separate workspace has been set up for each set of questions and I am sure that general responses would be appreciated by the leads in these sections.
For both papers, although it has taken a while to finally get some feedback which I really appreciate, the team and I will work on what contributions we receive to coordinate statements from the ALAC that reflects your concerns. But it does require everyone to contribute if they have expertise in the subject matter.
Truthfully, these are not subject areas I know much about, but as the penholder I am willing to coordinate the comments that arrive into a statement we can pass on. Please use the workspaces.
Maureen :)
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@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@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/00000....
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
Must agree with Olivier. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On May 8, 2017, at 4:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@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@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/00000....
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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+(ALA...)
ICANN remains at .75USD? 2017-05-08 13:08 GMT+03:00 Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>:
Must agree with Olivier.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On May 8, 2017, at 4:25 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@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@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@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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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@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)
-- Andrey Kolesnikov RIPN.NET
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Andrei Kolesnikov -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Holly Raiche -
Javier Rua -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji