RE: [ga] New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

We posted a response to George on CircleID.  Here is the response for
you all to view:

The author of this post has taken NeuStar's comments to the CRAI Report
out of context.  The original CRAI Report stated that restrictions on
Registry/Registrar cross-ownership should only be loosened if the
particular registry was not subject to price caps.  Our comment was
relating to that statement.  .BIZ has price caps simply because of a
legacy situation and not because a previous economic study stated this
should be so.  

If ICANN had adopted that recommendation by CRAI for new TLDs (which
apparently it has not according to the new Applicant Guidebook), our
comments simply meant that ICANN needed to re-examine whether price caps
were appropriate for .biz given that .biz represents such a small
overall market share for TLDs.  We are confident that such an economic
study would show that price caps were not necessary and therefore, a
relaxation of cross ownership restrictions would be just as appropriate
for .biz as it would be for new TLDs.

Our comments did not state that we intended to, or would ever, raise
prices to the extremes the author suggests.  After all, NeuStar is
subject to market pressures to which perhaps the dominant market share
registry is not.   

The author's post seems to boil down to a concern for the renewal price
of a domain name, as that price could potentially disadvantage a
registrant who has built up brand equity in its domain name.  NeuStar
sympathizes with this comment and has suggested to ICANN and others in
numerous conversations that perhaps a cap on renewal pricing for all
TLDs is appropriate and warranted.  After all, if the initial price of a
domain name registration is too high, market forces will push a
potential registrant to another TLD.  However, if the renewal price is
as the author suggests, then that could hurt the consumer.  

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc.
Vice President, Law & Policy 


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of George Kirikos
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:16 AM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2



Hi folks,

--- On Wed, 2/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Nice catch George.  Any yes this is voluminous.  As such,
> I can't see any reasonable way in which it could be properly
> implemented or adhered to.

I submitted slightly longer comments to CircleID that might be of
interest:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090219_tiered_pricing_continues_in_new_g
tld_guidebook/

In particular, DOJ made two specific recommendations, namely

(1) ICANN Should Give Greater Consideration to Consumer Interests before
Creating New gTLDs and Renewing Registry Agreements, and 

(2) ICANN Should Revise The RFP Process and the Proposed Registry
Agreement to Protect Consumers from the Exercise of Market Power. In
fact,
ICANN has done the exact opposite, ignoring consumer interests and
tilting
these agreements even more in favour of existing and prospective
registry
operators than the prior drafts.

It is time for the NTIA/DOJ to take decisive measures now to prevent
further damage through ICANN's utter disregard for the public interest.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/