In Support of RegistryPro Fee Amendment Proposal

[andrew campbell <akcampbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As the fivefold rise in .pro registrations during the past 10 months has shown, 
there is demand among qualified professionals for a unique online identity but 
for this process to gather momentum, ICANN must acknowledge that the current 
registry agreement is onerous and outdated and bring its terms into line with 
those being offered to new gTLD's.

An annual charge of $121,900 is excessive for a registry with just 36,000 
domains. RegistryPro generates, perhaps, $350,000 per annum in fees. Out of 
that, they have to pay office running costs, salaries for 12-15 staff, and 
registry infrastructure costs. They clearly cannot do that, pay $121,900 to 
ICANN on top, and have money left over to spend on marketing .pro.

Until September 2008, an individual could not register a second level .pro 
unless they were qualified in at least two of the following four professions; 
accountancy, engineering, medicine, and engineering; in either France, Canada, 
the UK or the US. I doubt whoever forecast 1m .pro registrations in 2000 was 
counting on 99.99% of potential customers being ineligible to register. If .pro 
is a poster child for anything, it's that restrictions don't work. Even now, 
90% of registrars by volume do not offer .pro. 

One point I agree with Mr Kirikos on is that ICANN should not be introducing 
new gTLD's while existing gTLD's like .pro are still lightly registered and 
burdened with uncommercial restrictions and fee structures. Landrush .pro 
registrants have sunk nearly $500 cumulatively into registrations and because 
$600,000 has had to be paid to ICANN since 2004, very little, if anything, has 
been spent promoting .pro. 

Andrew Campbell ACA


_________________________________________________________________

MSN straight to your mobile - news, entertainment, videos and more.

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/