[bc-gnso] Dot-Pro tries to get fee reductions from ICANN
- To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] Dot-Pro tries to get fee reductions from ICANN
- From: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:06:34 -0400
The following letter posted to ICANN's website might be of interest:
where a registry who already had a contract with ICANN is trying to
gain one-sided concessions.
In the world of ICANN, if you're a registry operator, you can promise
the world when you apply for a new gTLD, but if things don't work out,
you simply ask for concessions. The rule should be "a contract is a
contract is a contract" (unless it's an anti-competitive one that is
against the public interest, like the monopoly dot-com contracts,
where the government or the courts should feel free to break/void
those contracts to protect consumers).
Go back to their initial business plan/application/approval:
In D13.2.2 of the 2nd link:
" A detailed profit and loss account that provides a breakdown of
revenue and costs on a monthly basis. From a revenue perspective, we
have assumed that RegistryPro commences operations in month 6 and that
during the initial sunrise and landrush period, 1,000,000
registrations are sold. After this period, registrations are
anticipated to be approximately 90,000 a month and increase at between
0% to 10% per month depending on the level of marketing activity."
Keep reading the above links for their fiction about the "demand for
.pro", their marketing plan, etc. (and keep that in mind whenever you
read anything from new gTLD advocates, including ICANN). And then go
back to their letter to ICANN saying:
"A lower fee would enable the registry to invest in marketing and
branding initiatives that will make us competitive with other
similarly sized registries."
Hmmm, what about your original BUSINESS PLAN???
.pro is a failed registry, with only 36,000 registrations after 6
years. It should be put out of its misery and be phased out of the
root. They should serve as a poster child of why new gTLDs are a bad