ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [bc-gnso] Re: Dot-Pro tries to get fee reductions from ICANN

  • To: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Re: Dot-Pro tries to get fee reductions from ICANN
  • From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:32:02 +0100

George

I agree with Rick Anderson. The demand for new TLDs can not just be a one dimensional reverse analysis of names in a registry. The success, or otherwise, of any new TLD process is first that potential applicants want to use new TLDs for whatever purpose they come up with (creative and innovative) and then they need to convince customers that their idea is a good one. Plenty of good ideas have failed but that is no reason to not have a crack at something.

Liz
...

Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757



On 17 Jun 2009, at 22:17, George Kirikos wrote:


Oh, and to use up my 3rd and final post of the day, this is probably
why ICANN refuses to do a proper independent economic report on new
gTLDs, with empirical evidence, despite a board vote to do so years
ago. If they actually looked at the facts of TLDs they approved in the
past like .pro, the results would be undeniable and would undermine
ICANN's agenda.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM, George Kirikos<icann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi folks,

The following letter posted to ICANN's website might be of interest:

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sigmar-to-pritz-17jun09-en.pdf

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:

http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro2/
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro2/Registry%20Operators%20Proposal.htm
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm

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
idea.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>