Thanks Vanda, The reference to competition review in the proposal seems to be solely with respect to the registrar-registry integration and not other issues that may follow as a result of adoption of the new agreement. Surely anti-trust authorities could step in, but generally do not do so in relation to prices in a non-regulated industry (gov't regulated that is). So it is possible that a new agreement would be acceptable to them. I have not done an analysis of whether the new agreement (and the pricing to ICANN in it) would be attractive to Verisign/PIR - I suspect not. The current price from the registry for a .com domain is $7.85 and may rise by only 7% per year. The typical price for a .com domain in the US ranges from $7-13, so the Verisign fee is a driving factor of the retail cost. Alan At 04/06/2012 01:36 PM, Vanda UOL wrote:
Alan
You may right but the top on the contracts are also controlled by USG, since in the case of VeriSign there is a monopoly restriction regarding US law. I am not sure if this specific case will continue the overall restriction by USG after the new gTLDs start to run. But considering other new gTLDs will not sign such restrict agreement with top price clause I don´t see why VeriSign would accept to be the only one.
By the other hand , I do believe the prices per domain VeriSign is collecting ( about 8 US$?) per domain/year, has nothing to do with the prices you can pay from any registrar for the same domain. the price you pay has no real relation with the cost of the service. It is mostly defined by the market . but the risk exists: if the registry raises its prices , for sure the value you pay in the market can be times of such change.
Vanda
agem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Christopher Wilkinson Enviada em: segunda-feira, 4 de junho de 2012 04:53 Para: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership.
Dear Alan:
I share your concerns. There should be an ALAC comment. If the removal of gTLD Registry/Registrar cross-ownership restrictions is applied retroactively to existing operators, that radically changes the DNS business model. Including aspects of competition policy for which ICANN is responsible.
Thanks and Regards
Christopher.
On 04 Jun 2012, at 01:06, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Note the following note sent to the ALAC list.
Alan
To: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership .
I was asked to evaluate whether a comment of the Proposed Revised Process for Handling Requests for Removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions on Operators of Existing gTLDs warrants ALAC comment, and if so to draft such a comment. Following consultation with selected ALAC and At-Large members, I believe that a comment is warranted.
Unfortunately other commitments have prevented me from submitting such a comment until today, and the first stage of the comment period ends on June 6th.
I would suggest that if there is no substantive ALAC request to not submit this comment, that it be submitted prior to the deadline with the stated proviso that it is undergoing ALAC comment and approval. That would allow the ALAC to revise it if needed, and accept or reject it prior to the conclusion of the 2nd phase of the comment period.
The details of the proposal and comment period are at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/revised-cross-ownership-r estrictions-16may12-en.htm .
My concern is that one of the options provided is that existing registry operators (and specifically .com, .net and .org) can either request amendment of their agreements to remove cross-ownership restrictions, or can transition to the agreement to be used by all new gTLD operators. If they chose the latter path, along with the removal of the restrictions on cross ownership, they would also remove the price caps that are in existing agreements. This I feel could be of great detriment to Internet users.
My proposed comment follows.
Alan ==========================
The ALAC and At-Large have multiple opinions on whether the removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for gTLD Operators will be to the benefit or detriment of users, or in fact, the domain ecosystem. There is, however, a unified position that whatever the environment is, with certain constraints, there should be a level playing field for all gTLD operators.
As such, the ALAC supports the removal of cross-ownership constraints for existing gTLD operators.
Nevertheless, the ALAC does have one concern with the proposal, and that is the option for existing gTLD operators to transition to the new gTLD agreement. That transition would be subject to limits related to competition issues raised by the removal of the cross-ownership restrictions. The document is silent on other results of such a transition, and particularly the removal of price caps on existing operators.
The ALAC does not believe that there is sufficient proof at this time to indicate that the new gTLD environment will so significantly change the gTLD market so that price caps are no longer required for the dominant gTLDs. As such, no change driven by the removal of cross-ownership restrictions should at the same time remove the price caps in the current agreements for dominant gTLDs without substantive community involvement.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org