I suspect Registrars would resist that obligation, as they already believe they have too many mandatory touches on a client with mandatory renewal notices and mandatory whois check reminders. This would add another layer to what is mandatory for them. I fear we are trying to solve a theoretical problem that doesn’t exist in practicality. I was on the last 2 RAA negotiating teams and this was never mentioned as a concern. But I am thankful that it is not now within our remit. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:56 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments it needs to be in the RAA for sure. I see no other ways and with the laws around it needs be under the RAA where one can also add compliance etc., I think and pretty sure it makes logical sense to have these in the RAA. On Apr 12, 2018, at 19:52, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: While not mentioned in this thread, the only valid pricing concern I saw over the years is that while registries are obliged to inform registrars in advance the raising of renewal prices, the same doesn't happen with registrars and registrants. So a registrant that might prefer to anticipate renewals might not be informed of the upcoming raise. But since this out of scope of GNSO policies, that's possibly something to raise when RAA is amended. Rubens Em 12 de abr de 2018, à(s) 12:46:000, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> escreveu: Can someone explain to me what the concern is about transparency on price ? Registries publish their pricing to their clients, the Registrars. Registrars set whatever price they want for Registrants. Are we concerned about transparency of a Registrar not knowing what price a Registry is charging them ? Or are we concerned that a Registrant can’t tell what price their Registrar is charging them ? Rob From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:41 AM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments Any regulation on price will lead to Cartel organizations and corruption associated to it. Agree that transparency is the only demand we shall make related to pricing and from my view majority of it is in the contract words. Best to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 06:35 To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments Wasn’t pricing and why attempting to regulate it already discussed to death in the last round? I have some recollection of this. I think the key thing with regard to pricing is transparency, which is already baked into the contracts. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 09:13 To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments Dear Christopher, I'd like to make a comment and a note. 1. a note about pricing for premium domains - 'picket fence' protects both registries and registrars from influence of policies on pricing (also direct price regulation from ICANN will lead to investigations of anti-monopoly agencies around the world[in some countries it will constitute a crime]) 2. a comment on "Registry would be taking advantage of its monopoly over their TLD in question in an unjustifiably discriminatory manner." Fact that a particular company has a monopoly can be established only by the relevant market regulator. Registrants are free to choose another TLDs, if they are not happy with the terms of the particular ones. So assumptions that Registries are monopolists are not established facts and we can not use it. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 11 Apr 2018, at 23:51, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Good evening: Allow me to amplify and confirm my few Chat comments during the conference call last Monday afternoon, 9 April 2018. In general the working document (1.12 Deliberations etc .) is an excursion into a working method with which I am quite unfamiliar, so I ask those of you who have this for your bread-and-butter to bear with me for a little while. I also have noted that the document is in the form of questions for discussion and not recommendations at this stage. So I hope that some of my comments may still be taken into account. Indeed, at some points, I find the drafting on some issues rather uncertain; there are ambiguities and options that - from the point of view of a rather more conventional approach – might be described as loopholes. ICANN and GNSO will no doubt have gathered that the next 'round' will be scrutinised by third parties far more thoroughly than was the case in 2004 or 2012. More specifically: 1. Rollout: It would be helpful to have information about how many new TLDs have still not been implemented, and why. For instance, after the 24 months allowed, it is not clear why “… extensions…should continue to be available according to the same terms and conditions as they were allowed during the 2012 round.” In a related question, “The Work Track was also careful to avoid drawing the conclusion that only having <nic.TLD> registered constituted 'squatting' or 'warehousing' “ Taken together these two statements leave the strong impression that the Work Track would in practice accept squatting and warehousing of new TLDs. Was that intended? If there has been 'unwanted behaviour' – and the subsequent discussion suggests that there has been – then one might have expected a rather more proactive approach to discouraging such in the future. 2. Contractual compliance - pricing for premium domains. The document discusses the issue of 'pricing for premium domains' but reports that 'The WT has not reached any conclusions on this issue'. Whereas it is quite likely that applicant representations and related authorisations would address prmium pricing. For instance, in the case of a geographical name, there would normally be a presumption of non-discrimination between Registrants, such as towns or other communities, within that geo-TLD. More generally, ICANN might consider moving towards a policy whereby the economic 'rent' for a 'premium name' should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry. Otherwise it would appear that the Registry would be taking advantage of its monopoly over their TLD in question in an unjustifiably discriminatory manner. 3. Contractual compliance – enforceability of representations The document reports that the WT considered a proposal 'that all applicant representations should be included in the registry agreement' and that 'There was no agreement … in support of this proposal.' This would appear to be a rather weak conclusion which might be queried at a later stage because it does not really respond to the four questions indicated under f. Deliberations. * * * The above is but a summary of the main concerns evoked by this section of the draft. I look forward to discussing these and other aspects in due course. Christopher Wilkinson _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> * www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it" [cid:2B3C052F-D6B4-4773-9116-D703ACE1C1A9]
