[icann-eu] Fw: $6/year annual fee for .COM registrations

["JIM FLEMING" <jfleming@anet.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: JIM FLEMING <jfleming@anet.com>
To: <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: <kendall@obs-us.com>; Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>;
<cambler@iodesign.com>; <touton@icann.org>; <lswilson@free.midcoast.com>;
<andy@ccc.de>; <antitrust@ftc.gov>; <krose@ntia.doc.gov>;
<fwentland@ntia.doc.gov>; <ksmith@ntia.doc.gov>; <jsopko@ntia.doc.gov>;
<crogers@ntia.doc.gov>; <rdesilva@ntia.doc.gov>; <grohde@ntia.doc.gov>;
<karl@cavebear.com>; <mcade@att.com>; <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>;
<council@dnso.org>; Kristy <k@IES.NET>; JandL <jandl@jandl.com>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 9:50 AM
Subject: $6/year annual fee for .COM registrations


> Chuck,
>
> Is the new ICANN Board going to change the $6/year annual fee for .COM
> registrations ?[1]
>
> If a large percentage of the people with .COM names start RE-registering
> their
> name as NAME-INFO.com, NAME-BIZ.com, NAME-NAME.com, etc. in
> preparation for obtaining NAME.INFO, NAME.BIZ and NAME.NAME, then
> the 20+ million registrations in .COM could result in an additional 20 or
30
> million
> registrations in .COM during the transition. At $6/year, that could be
$100
> to $200
> million dollars in additional revenue without a comparable increase in
> costs. It seems
> that most of the work would be out at the Registrars and out in the new
> companies
> being re-built around the edges of the whole thing, which by the way, was
> the situation
> before the Registrars were artificially imposed between ISPs, web
designers
> and the
> NSI Registry.
>
> Beyond, .INFO, .BIZ, and .NAME, there are obviously other "heavy hitter"
> TLDs
> which the ICANN Board apparently realizes will find their own way into the
> U.S. Government's root name servers. Some people are focusing on those
with
> more
> than 5,000 registrations. It seems to me that these will also represent a
> large number of
> .COM registrations, with little or no additional cost on the part of the
> .COM Registry.
>
> 37187 ONLINE <<<<< In Floating Root
> 15755 INC
> 14787 NET   <<<<< In Floating Root
> 11783 USA
> 9455 E
> 9432 UK <<<<< In Floating Root
> 8657 WEB
> 8406 GROUP
> 7498 IT  <<<<< In Floating Root
> 7175 DESIGN
> 6935 SHOP
> 6268 TECH
> 6260 WORLD
> 6017 SOLUTIONS
> 5726 US    <<<<< In Floating Root
> 5617 SERVICES
> 5607 LINE
> 5331 TV   <<<<< In Floating Root
> 5212 CONSULTING
> 5188 1
> 5003 INTERNATIONAL
>
> It is still not clear if the various communities above will all choose to
> select one
> Registrar to handle their registrations, for some small fee above the
> $6/year. As
> with many industries, collective buying power can result in efficiencies
and
> cost-savings
> for the members. No matter what the volume, there does not seem to be any
> way
> to go lower than the $6/year floor, because of the .COM Registry price
> regulations
> coordinated by ICANN and the U.S. Department of COMmerce.
>
> If companies are facing 10 or 20 million registrations, a $6/year fee vs.
a
> $1/year
> fee makes a large difference in their business planning. That could
> represent $100
> million per year in additional cost, which could end up as profit if the
> $6/year fee
> is changed by the U.S. Department of COMmerce. Over the years, there has
> been
> a lot of rhetoric about "cost-recovery" Registries and such. Are the
people
> listed
> below lining up on one side in favor of lowering the $6/year fee to $1 ?
> vs.a rather
> small number of people (3) including yourself who want to protect your
> monopoly ?
>
> In closing, can you tell everyone what on earth you do with $100+ million
> each year ?
>
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://Register.WEB.com
>
>
> [1] @@@ http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc05/msg01568.html
>
> agree
>
> Andy Gardner [andy@navigator.co.nz]
> Bob Davis [bob.davis@netzero.net]
> Christopher Ambler [cambler@iodesign.com]
> Dale Farmer [Dale@cybercom.net]
> Dassa [dassa@dhs.org]
> Forrester D. Rupp [FRupp@aol.com]
> George Kougias vze25hmr@mail.verizon.net
> Ian Lance Taylor [ian@airs.com]
> Jeffrey A. Williams  jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Kendall Dawson [kendall@obs-us.com]
> Ken Stoen  [ken@orion.pmiw.com]
> Kristy [k@widgital.net]
> Leah Gallegos   [jandl@jandl.com]
> Marc Schneiders [marc@venster.nl]
> Michael F. McNulty [mcnulty@azstarnet.com]
> Roeland Meyer [rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Robin Miller [robin@minervan.com]
> Sandy Harris [sandy@storm.ca]
> Weisberg [weisberg@texoma.net]
> William X. Walsh [william@userfriendly.com]
>
>
> Disagree  current count =2
>
> Gomes,Chuck [cgomes@verisign.com]
> Dave Crocker [dhc2@dcrocker.net]
>
>
> Does not support the call
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mcade@att.com]   see coment #1 and bottom.
>
>
> Comments
> #1  I do not support any call that there is any kind of consensus within
the
> GA
> on these issues.  There hasn't been any real dialogue among the GA on
these
> issues, or other substantive issues which are before the GA as a body.
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>
>