[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: "Rick Anderson" <RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:09:27 -0600
I agree with George about the troubling business of TLD operators
renegotiating key terms of their agreements. Unless ICANN takes the
view that a contract is a contract, it will only be encouraging
applicants to make promises and forecasts which are unreliable with the
sense that there is no downside to doing so and with the expectation
that key terms can always be renegotiated after the fact. This would
undermine the value of the entire application and contracting processes.
However, I do not agree with George that registries should be deemed
"failures" simply on the strength of volume of registrants, nor that
some less-successful (or even failed) TLDs mean other potential TLDs are
a bad idea. ICANN has to provide for stability, for sure, but we cannot
make the possibility of "failure" a disincentive to innovation and
competition. If that was the rule society had followed, we'd not have
light bulbs or telephones, never mind the Internet.
Offering the registrant market choices - competition - is good in and of
itself, otherwise we shall stifle innovation and service and prop up
overpriced legacy operators. Plus, expanding the available real estate
is also good.
EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd.
cell: (403) 830-1798
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of George Kirikos
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:07 PM
To: BC gnso
Subject: [bc-gnso] Dot-Pro tries to get fee reductions from ICANN
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
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or
privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this
e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive
confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination,
distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of
this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify
sender at the above e-mail address.
Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail
message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no
liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like
other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to
interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by
e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent
is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as
encryption) unless specifically requested.