Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Draft v5.1 of our Advice, for discussion on Tuesday 14-Feb-2012

[Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey gang, I'm sorry I have a conflict with the call. I'm free all day tomorrow! 
Anyway, thanks to Steve for circulating this. I only have one comment. I don't 
think that lower price alone should be among our competition measures.    
Prices for new gTLDs could well be much higher than for today's legacy gTLDs, 
and in some instances the higher prices are the result of greater choice and 
competition.  For example,

Suppose <http://rayspizza.com/> rayspizza.com<http://rayspizza.com> costs $10 
and rayspizza.nyC costs $25.  The .nyc name may be much better value, 
especially if there are multiple Ray's Pizza parlors in New York City.

What about highly secure TLDs, which will probably have a higher domain name 
price?  If you are conducting highly secure transactions, it's probably worth a 
much higher price to have the assurances that comes with that TLD.

Dot Info currently charges $3 for a domain name (thru GoDaddy).   Even though 
that is 1/3 the cost of a .com name, does that make it better value for the 
registrant?

Competition needs to focus less on money coming into a registry and more on how 
it's spent.

Jonathan

On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:54 AM, "Steve DelBianco" 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Attached is draft v5.1, reflecting edits from Berry Cobb and Evan Leibovitch.

Berry updated missing dates, added a sentence on resource requirements, and 
clarified  our limited cross-community participation and path for advice 
consideration.

Evan picked-up on his earlier comments regarding choices available to consumers 
who may bypass DNS lookup thru means outside of ICANN's control.  Below is an 
excerpt showing Evan's new paragraphs, which I placed under a new heading on 
page 2:

Scope of this advice

The Working Group charter adopted a limited scope for this advice, citing the 
Board resolution seeking advice on definitions and metrics for the gTLD 
expansion review that is required in the Affirmation of Commitments.

The Working Group acknowledges that the limited scope it has undertaken 
provides only a partial evaluation of all choices from the Internet end-user 
point of view. Considering this perspective, a full examination of choice 
should not only measure the diversity within registries and registrars, but 
also examine options that allow users to avoid direct use of the DNS altogether.

Alternate methods of accessing Internet content and services (mobile apps, 
search engines, social portals, QR codes, etc.) are growing in popularity and 
themselves present innovative and competitive threats to ICANN-regulated TLDs.  
As such, they should be considered in any complete evaluation of consumer 
choice and trust related to ICANN in general and new gTLDs specifically.

Also attached a redline from v4.

Looking forward to finishing the Competition measures later today!

--
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
<http://www.NetChoice.org>http://www.NetChoice.org and 
<http://blog.netchoice.org> http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482

<CCI Advice Draft [v5.1].docx>
<Redline from v4 to v5.1.docx>