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

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

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/