Re: [registrars] Registration and renewal price in .com registry agreement
Bruce has eloquently described exactly how we feel. So just to be clear, Tucows will also agree to be invoiced directly. I would be remiss if I also didn't note the irony of registrars both engaged in litigation with ICANN and complaining about budget increases. Regards On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: Hello All, For information. Here is the relevant clause from the .com registry agreement. From:http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com- 25may01.htm "E. Adjustments to Price. The maximum pricing for initial and renewalregistrations set forth in Appendix G shall be adjusted at the beginningof each calendar quarter by adding, to the amount specified in thatAppendix (after adjustment according to Section 22(a)) as the applicableannual charge for initial or renewal registration of a domain name, an amount calculated according to the following three sentences. For calendar quarters in which the variable fee is collected at theregistrar level, the amount shall be US$0.00. For the first two calendarquarters during the Term of this Agreement in which the variable fee is collected at the registry level, the amount shall be four times the per-name variable accreditation fee charged to registrars for the quarter beginning six months earlier. For subsequent calendar quarters,the amount shall be four times the quarterly Variable Registry-Level Feereflected in the invoice to Registry Operator for such a fee for thequarter beginning six months earlier divided by the number of RegisteredNames that the invoice shows was used to calculate that quarterly Variable Registry-Level Fee. The adjustments permitted by this Subsection 7(E) shall only apply for periods of time as to which the Registry Operator does not have in effect a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement permitting it to require ICANN-Accredited Registrars to pay to Registry Operator a portion of Registry Operator's payments of variable registry-level fees to ICANN." Thus the ability for the Verisign registry to increase the per domain name price to collect the increase from registrars is effectively hard-coded into the contract. In a pure market, an operator may decide not to pass on the increase to their customers. But who will decide not to offer .com names because the price increases by say less than $1. The issue may be harder for an operator such as .name, where a price increase may be enough for a registrar to choose not to offer the service. Contrast this with our situation,. Many of us absorb ICANN fee increases, because we are in a very competitive market, and our customers can choose from over 100 other registrars, and probably thousands of domain name resellers. Some of these companies selldomains at below their market value, on the basis that they will pick upbusiness through value added products.Anyway I predict the following result if registrars decline to pay ICANNdirectly: - Verisign will increase its leverage over ICANN (as they will pay a larger portion of ICANN's fee) - they could for example delay payment which would impact ICANN ability to pay their staff, which would impact the ability of ICANN to regulate services such as WLS and Sitefinder. - once Verisign eventually pays ICANN, they will subsequently increase our fees - other registry operators may have a harder decision based on their market position - although most wouldn't be able to afford to pay ICANN without passing on the fee What we gain is a delay in making a payment (improves short term cash flow), what we lose is long term leverage. Now we can always ask the registry operators what they intend to do, although such discussions may give rise to anti-trust implications amongst the registry operators (e.g discussing possible price changes). Anyway for the reasons above, given that the budget and contractual structure for meeting the budget is set, Melbourne IT will agree to be invoiced directly by ICANN. We feel that giving more leverage to registries at this time would be a dangerous step. Regards, Bruce
|