Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments
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
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 Wilkinson <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
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> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 09:13 To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Christopher Wilkinson <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
Except that such transparency was not, and still is not, being enforced by ICANN. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:35 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=D... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwIGa... Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwIGaQ&... Some thoughts: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwIGaQ&c... ------------------------------- 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
All, I see a lot of good discussion on the substance of the recommendations (or lack thereof) and the merits of the substance in the report. While this is great, can I ask that these types of discussions be moved over to your responses filed during the Public Comment period as opposed to comments on the Initial Report. Cheryl and I will send around another note on this in the next 24 hours, but lets please focus on the following: 1. Does the Initial Report reflect the conversations that took place within the Working Group or in the Work Tracks? 2. Are there any positions that were actually expressed either in the CC1 or CC2 comments periods and/or in the actual discussions of the Working Group/Work Tracks that are not reflected in the Initial Report; Or are the positions that are expressed inaccurate. 3. Are the questions presented for public comment clear, concise and likely to evoke the types of responses that will be useful to the Working Group in finalizing recommendations on the specific subject matter. On the full Working Group call this week there were some really good comments from Anne, Christopher, Kristina and others on the types of things we are looking for. Namely, comments on what certain terms we used meant and that we needed a preamble of sorts discussing the approach we are taking for the initial report in general. Those are really the types of things we want to hear right now as we release more sections of the report. The types of things that we would not necessarily need at this point (although they are great in comments back during the public comment period) are (1) we like (or don’t like) where the Work Track came out on an issue, (2) We should have addressed issues x, y and z, (3) we disagree with comments that were made during deliberations. Again, they are important in responses back to the Initial Report during the public comment period, but they are not helpful for us in getting the Initial Report out in an manner that reflects the discussions that actually did take place. I hope that makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:48 AM To: michele@blacknight.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments Except that such transparency was not, and still is not, being enforced by ICANN. Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:35 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: 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/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=bA8ke9fZMPiE40lw06R51Nv5lKybHgfpkSJpOOO9W0E&e=> http://blacknight.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=NgP6XySIrWA_6Mpx-r9iP8o77v89ClvAmypwpV4Ab6U&e=> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=bG0zAbbRRHGTEp-xbsrMIzJNlwbud0ymAf-WTUyH9Gs&e=> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=FNiacIxcGagpNZgv53lNIi5nuvAsGGEISocnILL5UvM&e=> ------------------------------- 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=9iDL506KVFdYOLjI4IT5bOk-lWfAKbQ9XxDSiQC9ca8&e=> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information.
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> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 06:35 To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 09:13 To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Christopher Wilkinson <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
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> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:41 AM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 06:35 To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 09:13 To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Christopher Wilkinson <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
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> 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> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:41 AM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 06:35 To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 09:13 To: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Christopher Wilkinson <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
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> 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/ <https://www.blacknight.com/> http://blacknight.blog/ <http://blacknight.blog/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Kris Seeburn 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"
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]
Thanks Rubens, I think you will find that every Registrar informs clients immediately, as they go after the opportunity for the Registrant to buy up to 10 years at the lower price. But you are correct, that is driven by market forces, I don’t think there is any obligation in the RAA to inform the Registrant of the change in their renewal price at the time the Registry informs them, just at time of Renewal. And that might be too late and the price might already be in effect, as the Registry only has to give 6 months notice to the Registrar. I concur that Registrar-Registrant issues are out of scope for us and governed by the RAA. Rob From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:53 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments 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
So the official policies, which are contractually binding, are as follows: “Section 4.1 of the Expired Registration Recover Policy (ERRP) (found at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/errp-2013-02-28-en ) states, “Registrars must make their renewal fees, post-expiration renewal fees (if different) and redemption/restore fees reasonably available to registered name holders and prospective registered name holders at the time of registration of a gTLD name”. In addition, Section 4.1.1 of the ERRP states “At a minimum, these fees must be clearly displayed on the registrar’s website and a link to these fees must be included in the registrar’s registration agreement. Publishing of registration fees is not required by the Policy. ” 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> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 16:53 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments 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
I think the main issues is that with an endless variety for pricing models for especially premium names, it can be sometimes a bit difficult to discern the renewal pricing of a particular domain name. In the previous world, one only had to look at the standard price list of a registrar, look for a TLD and find your renewal price. If you do that now, you may find a bad surprise down the road when you notice that this price does not apply to your premium name, no matter how big the letters on the website of the registrar pointing out the possibility of differential pricing between names in the same TLD were. It has become somewhat consumer-unfriendly. Volker Am 12.04.2018 um 17:46 schrieb Rob Hall:
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> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> *Date: *Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:41 AM *To: *Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> *Date: *Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 06:35 *To: *Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <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
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> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday 12 April 2018 at 09:13 *To: *"lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>, Christopher Wilkinson <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Good evening: Thankyou, all, for several comments and corrections regarding my initial post. Pace Jeff Neumann's obiter dicta, I feel that I should respond briefly to some of them. 1. Pricing: I did not open a general discussion about Registry-Registrar pricing; I was referring specifically to reported discriminatory pricing for 'premium domains', an issue that was raised in the text. I expect this also to be an issue in Geo-Names. For example should <cork.munster> turn out to be several times more expensive than <killarney.munster> it is likely that ICANN would hear about it. Verb sap. 1. Competition: The argument about 'choice' is of limited validity in this market, particularly with reference to Geo-names. To follow the previous example, if <cork.munster> is too expensive or already taken, then <cork.donegall> would presumably be of no use whatsoever as an alternative. Furthermore, once the initial registration completed, should the registrant's domain become successful, there is normally no more choice of Registry. I suggest that further discussion of those matters that are not within the GNSO's or the PDP's mandate be taken off List. Regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: More generally, regarding competition policy, in my view ICANN IS the market regulator.
El 12 de abril de 2018 a las 18:14 Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> escribió:
I think the main issues is that with an endless variety for pricing models for especially premium names, it can be sometimes a bit difficult to discern the renewal pricing of a particular domain name.
In the previous world, one only had to look at the standard price list of a registrar, look for a TLD and find your renewal price. If you do that now, you may find a bad surprise down the road when you notice that this price does not apply to your premium name, no matter how big the letters on the website of the registrar pointing out the possibility of differential pricing between names in the same TLD were.
It has become somewhat consumer-unfriendly.
Volker
Am 12.04.2018 um 17:46 schrieb Rob Hall:
> >
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
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 Wilkinson" mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.euWilkinson <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
>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: http://www.key-systems.net / http://www.RRPproxy.net http://www.domaindiscount24.com / http://www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems http://www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP http://www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: http://www.key-systems.net / http://www.RRPproxy.net http://www.domaindiscount24.com / http://www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems http://www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP http://www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
participants (10)
-
Jeff Neuman -
Kris Seeburn -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson -
Maxim Alzoba -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Rob Hall -
Rubens Kuhl -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com -
Vanda Scartezini -
Volker Greimann