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

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] .net renewaql fee
by Donald Williams May 24, 2017

May 24, 2017

Hi In my opinion, the registration cost of .net, should never exceed the registration cost of .com Thanks Donald

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Opposed to URS being imposed on registrants, and ICANN fee should drop to 25 cents per domain
by George Kirikos May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

Submitted by: George Kirikos Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. Date: May 23, 2017 With regards to the proposed renewal of the .NET registry agreement posted by ICANN at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/net-renewal-2017-04-20-en my company would like to supplement its previously submitted comments with 2 additional points: 1. My company is opposed to any attempt to impose the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) policy on .NET registrants. The URS is not a consensus policy that went through the rigorous GNSO PDP process. Instead, it is an implementation detail of the failed new gTLDs program. The implementation details of the failed new gTLDs program should not be mirrored through a back-room bilateral negotiation between ICANN staff and the .NET registry operator. Instead, the multi-stakeholder model demands that only policies that have gone through the GNSO be required to be adopted by registries/registrars/registrants once they are consensus policies. INTA claims that adoption of the URS is somehow an "operational cost" for new gTLD registry operators, and that they are somehow harmed by the URS. In fact, it's *registrants* who face the costs and obligations imposed by the flawed URS, an unproven system that was agreed to by new gTLD registry operators as part of the "price" of having their unwanted new gTLDs adopted. There is an active GNSO PDP that is reviewing all rights protection mechanisms, including the URS and UDRP. Any attempt to add the URS to legacy TLDs like .com/.net/.org should await the completion of that PDP. 2. The proposed .NET renewal agreement keeps the ICANN fees at 75 cents per domain per year, despite those fees being 25 cents per domain name per year in all other registry agreements, e.g. for .org: https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/org-agmt-html-2013-09-12-en (section 7.2(a)) and .com: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreement-2012-12-05-en (section 7.2(a)) The extra 50 cents per year per domain per year is a $7.5 million annual tax on .NET registrants, given there are 15 million .NET domain names at present and those fees are passed on to consumers (registrants). There is no good reason why .NET domain registrants should face this fee discrimination by ICANN. It needs to be reduced to 25 cents per domain per year. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] .net registry agreement
by Paul Shaw May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

Icann should be going to tender with .net, instead we are seeing never ending price increases as Verisign calls the shots. Given the volume of names registered .net should have a wholesale price half of what it now is.

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] .net renewal prices need to drop, not go up
by Kelly Pitts May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

Hello ICANN, There is absolutely no reason why .net should be going up in price. To the contrary price should be dropping. It only cost about $2-$3 a year to serve as a domain name, which you and everybody in this industry knows. It would probably be even cheaper if you guys didn't pay yourself such high salaries. How many people are now making over $400,000 and ICANN? Shame on you and your handling of the namespace. I remember when .net was about $6. There is no justification from you for raising the price. Stop your big government antics and put out .net for a competitive bid and the price will go down, you would be doing your job correctly, and the public would benefit from the new, lower prices. Do what's right for a change ICANN.

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] INTA Comments
by Lori Schulman May 21, 2017

May 21, 2017

Attached please find our comments. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org<http://www.inta.org/> [cid:image005.jpg@01D270D2.1801CD20] Find us on: [Description: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA8566DC2514] Twitter<https://twitter.com/INTA> [Description: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=69899> [Description: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/GoINTA?ref=ts> [Description: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

1 0

[Comments-net-renewal-20apr17] Prices could be $14.52/yr in 2023! Opposed to .NET renewal with 10% annual price increases. Contract should be tendered, to foster competition.
by George Kirikos April 21, 2017

April 21, 2017

Submitted by: George Kirikos Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. Date: April 20, 2017 With regards to the proposed renewal of the .NET registry agreement posted by ICANN at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/net-renewal-2017-04-20-en my company is opposed to the proposed contract. In particular, rather than being renewed, there should be regular tender processes for operation of the registry for a fixed term, as is standard procedure for procurement contracts. Under the sweetheart deal that ICANN (pretending to negotiate in the public interest) has bestowed upon Verisign, consumers have already been harmed to the extent of tens of millions of dollars per year. And this harm increases year after year with the 10% annual price increases that are permitted, which far exceed inflation. ICANN now proposes to increase this annual harm from tens of millions of dollars per year to hundreds of millions of dollars per year. One need only look at section 7.3 of the red-line version of the agreement: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/net/net-proposed-renewal-red… where the price used to be $4.95/yr, and has skyrocketed to $8.20/yr, a whopping increase of 65.66% during the 6 year term of the prior contract. That's a $3.25/yr increase in fees, on approximately 15 million .NET domain names, or nearly $50 million PER YEAR in additional profits for Verisign at the expense of consumers. Under competition (and their are many potential candidates to compete for the .NET contract, including Afilias, Neustar, Nominet, Google, Amazon, etc), the annual registry fees would be much lower, perhaps $2/yr or even less. If prices were $2/yr instead of $8.20/yr, that would be a savings for consumers of 75.6%, or roughly $93 million PER YEAR. After 6 more years of 10% annual price increases, consumers could be facing registry fees of: 2018: $9.02/yr 2019: $9.92/yr 2020: $10.91/yr 2021: $12.00/yr 2022: $13.20/yr 2023: $14.52/yr (of course, those are the fees to registrars, who would then pass them along to consumers with an additional margin; registrars face competition amongst other registrars) Compared to $2/yr, a $14.52/yr fee on 15 million domains represents a loss to consumers of $187.8 million PER YEAR ($12.52/yr x 15 million). Obviously these allowed price increases are untenable. Compared to the $4.95/yr starting point 6 years ago, in 6 years consumers could be facing prices that are 193% higher (i.e. comparing $14.52/yr to $4.95/yr), when all other technology costs (hosting, bandwidth, storage costs, computing) have been decreasing. All other technology costs face competition, whereas ICANN protects Verisign from competition, harming consumers in the process. As ICANN appears incapable of negotiating in the public interest, it is time for this anti-competitive and anti-consumer contract to be set aside on anti-trust grounds by the relevant national authorities. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0