ICANN status
There's a Board call on the 7th that has a discussion of org/info/biz on the agenda. I hope I'll be able to be on the call — I'll be at a conference that doesn't have great cell reception.
I am most concerned about the possibility of differential pricing for renewals. I personally think the contracts should require that no renewal at time T cost more than the lowest fee the registry is charging for individual (ie, not part of a bulk sales deal of any kind) new registrations at time T. It doesn't make sense to allow a registry to hold up a registrant at renewal. Switching costs are high.
The approval of these contracts isn't on the agenda, and I don't anticipate that they'll be approved on this call.
Given that the .com contract still hasn't been approved, it doesn't seem appropriate to assume that it will be approved unchanged.
Happy to hear from anyone about this, of course.
Comments
9 Responses to “ICANN status”
Got something to say?
>Switching costs are high.
Wouldn't any registrar have to charge at least the same rough price for a renewal? So If I'm registered through Dotster, and they want to charge me $1,000 for a renewal of a .org I own, me simply trying to transfer to NSI isn't going to help me, is it? Wouldn't NSI also want to charge me around $1,000?
You might wish to smoothen the individual price: Don't make it the lowest price at the instant of renewal, but the lowest price over the previous 6 months, or some such.
What's the strongest argument against continuing to contract for a fixed price from the registry?
As I see it, ICANN is contracting for the provision of a service to third parties. Those third parties don't get any choice about who provides them the service (if you want a .org, you get it registried by PIR or not at all), and thus rely on ICANN to do their negotiating to keep costs down. If existing registries want to raise prices, is there any indication that others wouldn't bid to do it for less?
no — this is a registry issue. whether the registry can charge more for a renewal. puts the registrars in a bind.
interesting. whichever is easiest to police — maybe six months is. thanks so much.
well, for initial registrations (as opposed to renewal), the argument is that the market will do the negotiating — if we have an adequately competitive market, and the “products” are substitutable, then registries will have to watch each other and keep prices down.
There are thousands of public comments against the proposals here. I hope Board members are reading them, and not relying on the staff to properly summarize them.
Differential pricing is not the only thing wrong with these contracts. Presumptive renewal, and the use of traffic data are just two obvious other ones.
These proposed contracts should be set aside (i.e. filed in the garbage), and the registries be re-bid, so that consumers can get the best possible combination of price and service from whoever wins the contract. That competition between prospective registry operators for another 6 year term will certainly drive prices lower than they are today. It's just common sense.
Susan - Your statement “I am most concerned about the possibility of differential pricing for renewals” reflects the grave concern of many thousands of individuals and internet businesses. Differential pricing (written into the biz/info/org contract agreements) is so extraordinarily dangerous to the market that it defies any attempt at justification. That this is not immediately evident to all ICANN board members leads one to conclude corruption or incompetence.
I am inspired by your comment as it points to some promise of reason still in existence at ICANN.
Glad to see you thinking of registry-level competition, but that's a big “if” at this rate.