RE: [registrars] Economic Study of Proposed Registry Agreements

["Bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You don't need an economic study to answer these questions. The answers are
obvious.

You *may* need an economic study to prepare a report that attempts to
justify a position contrary to the obvious answers :)

Another question I am grappling with is - will this economic study -
assuming they come up with accurate results - be applied to only
BIZ/INFO/ORG. Why does this resolution not mention the pending .com
settlement agreement and the .net revisions? The questions raised here have
been raised since the .NET amendment

- Bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:37 PM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: [registrars] Economic Study of Proposed Registry Agreements
> 
> 
> 
> From the ICANN Board meeting on 18 Oct:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-18oct06.htm
> 
> Economic Study of Proposed Registry Agreements
> 
> Whereas, proposed new registry agreements between ICANN the 
> operators of the .BIZ, .INFO, and .ORG registries have been 
> posted for public comment and presented to the Board.
> 
> Whereas, the proposed new agreements were the subject of a 
> substantial number of comments, especially concerning 
> competition-related issues such as differential pricing.
> 
> Whereas, ICANN's Core Values include: 
> 
> * Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, 
> reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. 
> 
> * Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market 
> mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment.
>  
> * Introducing and promoting competition in the registration 
> of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the 
> public interest. 
> 
> Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the proposed new 
> agreement, and the public comments and the registry 
> responses, and finds that approval of the proposed new 
> agreements would be beneficial for ICANN and the Internet 
> community, provided that ICANN and the registry operators are 
> able to agree to appropriate revisions to the proposed 
> agreements to address competition-related issues such as 
> differential pricing.
> 
> Whereas, the GNSO is currently conducting a 
> policy-development process that includes study of some of 
> these issues, but ICANN has pressing operational questions 
> relating to its bilateral contracts with registry operators 
> that need to be resolved, separate from any generally 
> applicable new policies on this subject that might be 
> recommended through the GNSO process.
> 
> Whereas, the domain registration market is very complex and 
> producing reliable analysis and findings will require 
> high-levels of economic expertise.
> 
> Resolved (06.___), the President is directed to commission an 
> independent study by a reputable economic consulting firm or 
> organization to deliver findings on economic questions 
> relating to the domain registration market, such as:
> 
> * whether the domain registration market is one market or 
> whether each TLD functions as a separate market, 
> 
> * whether registrations in different TLDs are substitutable, 
> 
> * what are the effects on consumer and pricing behavior of 
> the switching costs involved in moving from one TLD to another, 
> 
> * what is the effect of the market structure and pricing on 
> new TLD entrants, 
> 
> and 
> 
> * whether there are other markets with similar issues, and if 
> so how are these issues addressed and by who? 
> 
> Resolved (06.__), after having considered the public comments 
> and the responses from the registries, the President and the 
> General Counsel are hereby requested to renegotiate the 
> proposed agreements relating to:
> competition-related concerns (in particular price increase 
> restrictions); traffic data and review mechanisms resulting 
> from the introduction of new studies or additional information.
> 
>