RE: [ga] Registrants

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think the point of the registrants is made clear here. Had or in the future 
the registrants banded together as the driving and focal point of the consumer 
we could have balanced the scales.  No group is in a better position to 
influence and guide the consumer.  No group if organized could have a larger 
more broad based impact.
 
But as is just as historical as Karl's account is the account of the infighting 
and lack of leadership among the registrants. It is a tale filled with self 
promotion and total lack of altruism.  No matter how we point the fingers at 
ICANN and the USG it is the failure of the registrants that has allowed the 
status we now own.  In my lifetime we have seen atrocities committed and 
horrible violence because good women have stood by and done nothing.  But 
nowhere have I seen such refusal to act based completely on the lack of desire 
to do what is right as opposed to self interest. It is truly epic. It is on par 
with the greed revealed so well in the financial crisis and mortgage debacle of 
today.

--- On Thu, 11/12/09, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ga] Registrants
To: karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 1:52 PM



One correction below Karl and one comment.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants
> 
> 
> On 11/11/2009 12:31 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Actually, the fees for domain names were introduced in 1995 
> by NetSol, 
> > the then monopoly Registry/Registrar, well before ICANN.
> > For the record, in 1995 registrants were paying $50 for a 
> domain name 
> > under .com, 30% of which of tax. The tax was later lifted, 
> but the $35 
> > remained until ICANN introduced the separation between registry and 
> > registrar that made the prices drop.
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but that was not what 
> caused the prices to drop, nor has ICANN allowed prices to 
> drop to a level commensurate with what was expected of the 
> registry-registrar model.
> 
> Originally, when SRI ran the domain name registry, names were free.
> 
> Then along came Network Solutions and the Cooperative Agreement.
> 
> Under the old cooperative agreement, once charging was 
> allowed at all, the price was fixed by the US Gov't at $50 
> with $15 going to the gov't as a net-users tax.
> 
> That $15 tax was declared unlawful and abandoned, leaving $35 
> per name.
> 
> The Cooperative Agreement was to have ended in 1997 or 1998 (I forget
> which) with Network Solutions/Verisign handing everything 
> back to the Gov't.

Chuck: The normal procedure at the end of cooperative agreements with
NSF was for NSF to back away and let the contractor continue its
services.  There was nothing in the cooperative agreement that I am
aware of that called for "handing everything back to the government".
The administration at the time decided not to follow the normal
procedure for reasons well known.


> 
> Obviously that never happened.
> 
> Because of the unexpected growth of the net the USG was 
> poised to get stuck with some cost overruns and the US Gov't 
> couldn't act fast enough (the USG takes years to do things) 
> to find its way out of the developing mess.
> 
> So, as a matter of expediency, the Cooperative Agreement was 
> amended and extended several times to become the umbrella for 
> all things ICANN and Verisign.
> 
> As part of this the US Gov't caused ICANN to be created by 
> the law firm of Jones Day (a firm that still continues to 
> this day to be one of ICANN's largest creditors and which 
> still maintains considerable presence inside of ICANN.)
> 
> ICANN did not change the game of prices.
> 
> Rather it was the US Gov't that removed the price term, 
> leaving the price to float whether there is 
> registrar/registry separation or not.
> 
> In other words neither ICANN not the registry-registrar model 
> can take the credit for the price drop.

Not sure I agree with you here.  At the registrar level, market forces
were allowed to operate and they did.

> 
> The Cooperative Agreement games were documented in great 
> depth in the Rony's book
> http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Handbook-Stakes-Strategies-Cybers
> pace/dp/0879305150/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258055878&sr=8-1
> 
> But ICANN can take a bow and claim credit for the price not 
> dropping as far as it could have dropped:
> 
> After the Gov't decreed price was eliminated ICANN 
> inserted-back two fixed-price components: the registry fee (a 
> fee based on nothing more substantial than warm air and hand 
> waiving) and the ICANN tax.  The impact of these forms in 
> many cases the largest part of the overall domain name cost 
> to consumers.
> 
> If ICANN were to allow the registry fee component to reflect 
> actual registry costs, internet users would save the larger 
> part of a $1,000,000,000 USD per year in excessive domain name fees.
> 
>         --karl--
> 
> 
>