[ncdnhc-discuss] rate regulation

[Milton Mueller]

Adam:
I still don't agree. The best way to put rational
and legitimate price pressure on registries is to
introduce new competition, i.e. new TLDs.

You are promoting the regulatory paradigm: 
the idea that a regulator finds the "right" price and then imposes 
it on everyone. There are a couple of risks there. First, you 
spend a considerable amount of resources on regulation.
As Harold can tell you, rate cases are costly for those who
do them right. It makes little sense to regulate the price
down to 5.87 but spend an extra .15 on the ICANN tax
required to support the staff and processes to do it.

If you don't do them right, the risks are even
greater. Set the price too low, and you threaten the economic
sustainability of the registry. And keep in mind that for a 
consumer, the difference between $6 and $5 a year is LESS 
than a penny a day. Domain name registration is already a
tiny fraction of the cost of having an Internet presence. 
.Biz and .info are growing at 3% a month, .com until recently
was declining. Perhaps their (very slight) lower registry prices
has something to do with that. 

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 08/22/02 05:39AM >>>
If the current price is high (some ORG bids seem to indicate it is, 
and I think an analysis of operational/technical factors could help 
establish this, not rate setting per se, but attempting to understand 
the costs involved), then waiting for new TLDs and competition to 
take effect would be very nice for VeriSign, but not so nice for 
consumers who would continue to pay artificially high prices (and 
subsidize VeriSign) for as long as it takes to get new TLDs and their 
knock-on effect in place (being generous, lets say 5 years at the 
current pace.)

I am not proposing any particular solution (if it were up to me I'd 
farm the whole thing out to a bunch of people at TPRC 
<http://www.tprc.org> ... want to hold a BoF?), I am asking that a 
review process begin.

Harold's concern about asking the names council to take on a rates 
case -- I think the names council should begin and be involved in any 
review (do you agree some mechanism to review the current wholesale 
price is necessary?), but I doubt it has the skills to take it on 
alone (and it wouldn't be appropriate for the names council to do 
this alone, the commercial conflicts would be intense.)  And I'm not 
suggesting that such a review's only option would be to just re-set 
the rate +/- dollars and cents.

Thanks,

Adam




>You are proposing more detailed regulation of
>registry prices, however a clearer and simpler alternative
>is simply to define a method for regular and open
>entry into registry services (i.e., new TLDs), so
>that competition defines the wholesale as well as
>the retail price.
>
>>>>  "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net> 08/21/02 10:52AM >>>
>I would agree Adam that this needs to be revisited. The wholesale prices for
>domains were established last when the world was in its first Internet
>Commerce Frenzy and before the market dropped out from under the Dot Coms...
>Based on that, there still is an ever increasing amount of commerce flowing
>over the Internet, but this does not necessarily make any of the domain's
>that are dot net or dot com more valuable than others.
>
>I also support a review of the Wholesale Pricing models for all the original
>TLD's
>
>Todd Glassey
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
>Cc: <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>; <faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe>;
><ehchun at peacenet.or.kr>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:22 AM
>Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request: discussion of
>wholesale price for names
>
>
>>  With the ORG process near complete I think it's time the wholesale
>>  price for NET and COM was reviewed. I would like our name council
>>  representatives to put discussion of the TLD wholesale price on the
>  > agenda for the names council meeting on Sept 12 (if still the date?),
>  > please. I know anyone can suggest agenda items, but I'm hoping there
>  > will be support for this suggestion from the constituency:  is there?
>  >
>  > It's been about 3 years since the wholesale price was established,
>  > and given that many of the bids for ORG came in with prices lower
>  > than the current wholesale price (some significantly lower for bulk),
>  > I think there is clear indication that the current price is too high.
>  > At least enough indication to warrant an review.
>  >
>  > I expect any such review would be beyond the competency of the names
>  > council to handle (not least, economists needed), but it is an
>  > inquiry that I think the council or its successor should shape. It
>>  may also be helpful for the ERC's names policy development group to
>>  consider whether the processes, etc., it's recommending could handle
>>  job like this, or wether a President's committee (or some new
>>  hi-level policy development body that acts a little more quickly than
>>  the usual pace of the President's committees we known in the past)
>  > might be required.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>  Adam Peake
>  > GLOCOM  Tokyo
>>  --
>>  _______________________________________________
>  > Discuss mailing list
>  > Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
>  > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
>  >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 


--