ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: Dot-Pro tries to get fee reductions from ICANN

  • To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: Dot-Pro tries to get fee reductions from ICANN
  • From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:18:57 -0700 (PDT)

By the way, this is probably why ICANN refuses to do a proper independent 
economic report on new gTLDs, with empirical evidence, despite a board vote to 
do so years ago. If they actually looked at the facts of TLDs they approved in 
the past like .pro, the results would be undeniable and would undermine ICANN's 


George Kirikos

--- On Wed, 6/17/09, George Kirikos wrote:
> Hi folks,
> The following letter posted to ICANN's website might be of
> interest:
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sigmar-to-pritz-17jun09-en.pdf
> where a registry who already had a contract with ICANN is
> trying to gain one-sided concessions.
> In the world of ICANN, if you're a registry operator, you
> can promise the world when you apply for a new gTLD, but if
> things don't work out, you simply ask for concessions. The
> rule should be "a contract is a contract is a contract"
> (unless it's an anti-competitive one that is against the
> public interest, like the monopoly dot-com contracts, where
> the government or the courts should feel free to break/void
> those contracts to protect consumers).
> Go back to their initial business
> plan/application/approval:
> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro2/
> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro2/Registry%20Operators%20Proposal.htm
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm
> In D13.2.2 of the 2nd link:
> " A detailed profit and loss account that provides a
> breakdown of revenue and costs on a monthly basis. From a
> revenue perspective, we have assumed that RegistryPro
> commences operations in month 6 and that during the initial
> sunrise and landrush period, 1,000,000 registrations are
> sold. After this period, registrations are anticipated to be
> approximately 90,000 a month and increase at between 0% to
> 10% per month depending on the level of marketing
> activity."
> Keep reading the above links for their fiction about the
> "demand for .pro", their marketing plan, etc. (and keep that
> in mind whenever you read anything from new gTLD advocates,
> including ICANN). And then go back to their letter to ICANN
> saying:
> "A lower fee would enable the registry to invest in
> marketing and branding initiatives that will make us
> competitive with other similarly sized registries."
> Hmmm, what about your original BUSINESS PLAN???
> .pro is a failed registry, with only 36,000 registrations
> after 6 years. It should be put out of its misery and be
> phased out of the root. They should serve as a poster child
> of why new gTLDs are a bad idea.
> Sincerely,
> George Kirikos
> http://www.leap.com/

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>