Oh, and to use up my 3rd and final post of the day, this is probably why ICANN refuses to do a proper independent economic report on new gTLDs, with empirical evidence, despite a board vote to do so years ago. If they actually looked at the facts of TLDs they approved in the past like .pro, the results would be undeniable and would undermine ICANN's agenda. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM, George Kirikos<icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

The following letter posted to ICANN's website might be of interest:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sigmar-to-pritz-17jun09-en.pdf

where a registry who already had a contract with ICANN is trying to gain one-sided concessions.

In the world of ICANN, if you're a registry operator, you can promise the world when you apply for a new gTLD, but if things don't work out, you simply ask for concessions. The rule should be "a contract is a contract is a contract" (unless it's an anti-competitive one that is against the public interest, like the monopoly dot-com contracts, where the government or the courts should feel free to break/void those contracts to protect consumers).

Go back to their initial business plan/application/approval:

http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro2/ http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro2/Registry%20Operators%20Proposal.htm http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm

In D13.2.2 of the 2nd link:

" A detailed profit and loss account that provides a breakdown of revenue and costs on a monthly basis. From a revenue perspective, we have assumed that RegistryPro commences operations in month 6 and that during the initial sunrise and landrush period, 1,000,000 registrations are sold. After this period, registrations are anticipated to be approximately 90,000 a month and increase at between 0% to 10% per month depending on the level of marketing activity."

Keep reading the above links for their fiction about the "demand for .pro", their marketing plan, etc. (and keep that in mind whenever you read anything from new gTLD advocates, including ICANN). And then go back to their letter to ICANN saying:

"A lower fee would enable the registry to invest in marketing and branding initiatives that will make us competitive with other similarly sized registries."

Hmmm, what about your original BUSINESS PLAN???

.pro is a failed registry, with only 36,000 registrations after 6 years. It should be put out of its misery and be phased out of the root. They should serve as a poster child of why new gTLDs are a bad idea.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

I agree with George about the troubling business of TLD operators renegotiating key terms of their agreements. Unless ICANN takes the view that a contract is a contract, it will only be encouraging applicants to make promises and forecasts which are unreliable with the sense that there is no downside to doing so and with the expectation that key terms can always be renegotiated after the fact. This would undermine the value of the entire application and contracting processes. However, I do not agree with George that registries should be deemed "failures" simply on the strength of volume of registrants, nor that some less-successful (or even failed) TLDs mean other potential TLDs are a bad idea. ICANN has to provide for stability, for sure, but we cannot make the possibility of "failure" a disincentive to innovation and competition. If that was the rule society had followed, we'd not have light bulbs or telephones, never mind the Internet. Offering the registrant market choices - competition - is good in and of itself, otherwise we shall stifle innovation and service and prop up overpriced legacy operators. Plus, expanding the available real estate is also good. cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd. randerson@interborder.ca cell: (403) 830-1798 -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:07 PM To: BC gnso Subject: [bc-gnso] Dot-Pro tries to get fee reductions from ICANN Hi folks, The following letter posted to ICANN's website might be of interest: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sigmar-to-pritz-17jun09-en.pdf where a registry who already had a contract with ICANN is trying to gain one-sided concessions. In the world of ICANN, if you're a registry operator, you can promise the world when you apply for a new gTLD, but if things don't work out, you simply ask for concessions. The rule should be "a contract is a contract is a contract" (unless it's an anti-competitive one that is against the public interest, like the monopoly dot-com contracts, where the government or the courts should feel free to break/void those contracts to protect consumers). Go back to their initial business plan/application/approval: http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro2/ http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro2/Registry%20Operators%20Proposal.htm http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm In D13.2.2 of the 2nd link: " A detailed profit and loss account that provides a breakdown of revenue and costs on a monthly basis. From a revenue perspective, we have assumed that RegistryPro commences operations in month 6 and that during the initial sunrise and landrush period, 1,000,000 registrations are sold. After this period, registrations are anticipated to be approximately 90,000 a month and increase at between 0% to 10% per month depending on the level of marketing activity." Keep reading the above links for their fiction about the "demand for .pro", their marketing plan, etc. (and keep that in mind whenever you read anything from new gTLD advocates, including ICANN). And then go back to their letter to ICANN saying: "A lower fee would enable the registry to invest in marketing and branding initiatives that will make us competitive with other similarly sized registries." Hmmm, what about your original BUSINESS PLAN??? .pro is a failed registry, with only 36,000 registrations after 6 years. It should be put out of its misery and be phased out of the root. They should serve as a poster child of why new gTLDs are a bad idea. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.