Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal - tindal Question 5

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 11 Apr 2010, at 22:51, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 5.  You've proposed that ICANN fees be revised (assume this means lowered) 
> for registries that provides free names to customers.   ICANN's fees are set 
> on a cost recovery basis.   Are you suggesting that free domains generate 
> less work for ICANN?   If so, this seems counter intuitive.   Very cheap (or 
> free) names generally result in higher registration volumes and are often 
> more associated with malicious activity.    What is the principle you are 
> applying to correlate cheap names with low fees?  


First while this is included in the proposal as a side issue, it was not 
expected that this would group would be making recommendations on them.  I 
expect this to come out of the group that the Board has proposed on this theme 
of helping those new Registries who need help.  

Certainly any domain names distributed for free within a Single Registrant 
would be less work for ICANN.  I do not see how this is counter-intuative.  Not 
only is the Single Registrant a one stop address for taking care of any 
problems that might occur with malicious usage, their names are designated as 
not transferable so any expenses invovled in transfer would be unecessary.  So, 
for these names at the least, lower fess seems to make great sense.

Also we have been told repeatedly that the overarching issues are not as much 
an issue in cultural domains or IDNs, so if a Registry is taking care with of 
registrations and only registering know entities in the cultural or linguistic 
community the risk might be very minimal.

In any case, this is another area where a complex set of condition would need 
to be established enabling such exceptions and deviation from normal fee basis.

This is to say nothing about whether ICANN really works on a cost recovery 
basis or not - and should or shouldn't - a subject I will leave to others to 
debate. I think this is an important subject, but not one we necessarily have 
time for at the moment.


a.