Dear Karl, 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. 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. I agree with you that the price of domain names for end users to register is too high. 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. 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. 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. 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. In short - the whole system is skewed and has become a ground open to abuse. For a change to take place, the system needs: 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% b. if by miracle, (a) gets approved, it needs Board approval. Likelihood for this to happen is probably quite good (50%+). 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% 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%. 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: 1. it will show a failure of the private sector led multi-stakeholder model to address consumer issues 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 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. 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. 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. Kindest regards, Olivier On 26/06/2019 01:19, Karl Auerbach wrote:
I find it interesting that the notion of 'removing the price cap" is being read to suggest an increase in registry fee amounts.
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.
Running a registry is largely a back room operation - some database transaction servers and a cloud of actual DNS name servers.
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.
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.
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?
--karl-- _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.