comments-net-renewal-20apr17

Download

comments-net-renewal-20apr17@icann.org

June 2017

2 participants
2 discussions

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Ratified: ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 6, 2017

June 6, 2017

Dear All, Please be so kind to find attached the ratified ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of .NET Registry Agreement. Ratification information is included in the staff introduction section. One sentence in the Statement has been corrected. In version AL-ALAC-ST-0517-07-00-EN: The proposed $10 increase is also out of scope of an ICANN Registry Agreement. The above sentence has been replaced with the following: The proposed 10% annual increase which all goes to the registry is significantly high and should be re-considered. Thank you, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Posted on behalf of Vanda Scartezini whose original comment should have been posted on 08 May 2017
by Karla Hakansson June 2, 2017

June 2, 2017

From: Vanda Scartezini [mailto:vanda@scartezini.org] Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 9:46 AM To: comments-net-renewal-20apr17(a)icann.org Subject: .NET Importance: High Dear all Due some time working here talking with new gTLDs I know, may be better than others not so involved, the content of the Registry Agreements for the new registries. The general idea I am reading in this draft is to adequate similar terms to legacy TLDs. Prices – setting limit for almost 9 US$, in my opinion does not impact directly registrants due two reasons: registrars will negotiate best prices based on market demand and since Registries had the obligation to sell to all interested certificated registrars makes the basic price be basically the same – to end users the registrar is the key interface to control. Verisign used to be controlled basically due .com by antitrust laws in US ( and so by NTIA) since all registries are, per definition, a monopoly and .com was out of doubt the larger registry under one string. Due such control , I believe, Verisign is also compliance with all requirements under .Net , as stated by ICANN, to avoid any problem with local authorities. Demand for Escrow format , BRDA and API spec as ICANN is demanding for new gTLDs, I see as very positive for end users, as relevant guaranties. New Whois is also relevant for improve data privacy. Other points as they had incorporated to .ORG agreement, I believe shall be repeated, it was discussed when was for the new agreement under dot org, since both registries had same previous agreement and we shall avoid different agreements for each registry. In general, I haven’t see any point that I would raise as not of end use interest. Vanda Scartezini

1 0