ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [net-com] GNSO draft Final Report on .net

  • To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [net-com] GNSO draft Final Report on .net
  • From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:46:43 +0200 (CEST)
  • Cc: <net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'gnso.icann'" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <200407150745.i6F7jt0A030501@turbo.aim.be>
  • Sender: owner-net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Below my comments on the proposed changes.

Relative criteria, 1, second bullet point:

I do not like the change at all. I understand that lower costs to
registrars could mean (and probably will mean) lower prices for domain
name registrants (which is what interests me and should, I think, be a
main focus of ICANN). The focus is now too much on the perspective of
the registrar. Also the text is ambiguous. Overall costs? Those differ
from registrar to registrar, for smaller ones the annual fees meaning
a higher per domain cost. So if the annual fees are lower in a
proposal, this is good for small registrars. If the fee per domain is
lower this is better for large registrars. In short: the new text is
unclear. And its focus is not on the end user. Further I think the
reformulated cirterium does not offer any clear guidance.

Relative cirteria, 2, third bullet point:

I think this is mute after Verisign announced quicker updating

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