[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on .org and protection ofexisting domain name holders

[Derek Conant]

I realize that.  However, it appears that the scheme being put into
motion will generate revenue from ICANN Accredited Registrars through
the new .ORG registry/operator charging Registrars additional
application and licensing fees for their participation in .ORG.  So,
where will the money (approx. $10,000 to $15,000 per year, per
Registrar) that the new registry/operator may charge the Registrars go? 
Back to VeriSign?  Hmmm...I don't know.

Then there is the issue of how much .ORG Registrars will charge
consumers.  If only a few Registrars can afford to pay the new .ORG
registry/operator its application and licensing fees, then there could
be a real problem for the consumer if the current transfer policy
between Registrars is effectively eliminated because Registrars could
not afford to compete in sponsoring .ORG domain names.

Regardless of how this is looked at, it appears that the .ORG scheme may
cost consumers more money in .ORG domain name registration fees and
their appears to be no real benefit to the domain name industry or the
consumer for assigning .ORG to a new registry/operator at this time.   

Thank you.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman


James Love wrote:
> 
> The US government now regulates what Netsol can charge to run the .org
> registry.  The issue is what will happen next, and how will domain holders
> be protected in the new regime?  The resolution simply asks for a staff
> report that addresses this topic.   Jamie
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Derek Conant" <dconant at dnsga.org>
> To: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> Cc: "James Love" <love at cptech.org>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <ga at dnsga.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 3:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on .org and protection ofexisting
> domain name holders
> 
> > The problem I see here that is not being addressed or answered is that
> > if .ORG is assigned to a new operator, this probably means that ICANN
> > Accredited Registrars who currently sponsor .ORG will probably be
> > required to pay additional registry application, qualification and
> > license fees to the new operator.  Or else, the ICANN Accredited
> > Registrar may no longer sponsor the .ORG TLD.
> >
> > If additional registry application, qualification and license fees are
> > required to sponsor .ORG, how many of the 80+ ICANN Accredited
> > Registrars will pay (or are able to pay) the additional registry
> > application, qualification and license fees to the new operator?
> >
> > It is established that users of other TLDs (.COM, .NET and .ORG) can
> > transfer their domain names between ICANN Accredited Registrars who are
> > licensed by the registry to sponsor the specific TLD being transferred.
> > This is the mechanism that currently protects other domain name holders
> > from unreasonable fees for domain name registration.
> >
> > A concern is that what if only 5 of the ICANN Accredited Registrars are
> > able to apply, qualify and are licensed by the new operator to sponsor
> > the .ORG TLD.  5 ICANN Accredited Registrars is not 80 Registrars and
> > this example could effectively eliminate the registrar transfer policy
> > and mechanism that currently protects .ORG domain name holders from
> > unreasonable fees for domain name registration.
> >
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> >
> >
> > Dave Crocker wrote:
> > >
> > > At 10:54 AM 2/8/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
> > > >The price of a .org registration has been regulated by the US
> Department
> > > >of Commerce.
> > >
> > > Registry price is regulated.  End-user price is not.  The price is the
> same
> > > as for a dot-COM or dot-NET domain name.
> > >
> > > >3. If .org is reassigned to a new operator, it is essential that the
> > > >existing .org domain name holders be protected against unreasonable
> fees
> > > >for domain name registration.
> > >
> > > This suggests that there is no need to protect users of other TLDs from
> > > unreasonable fees.  That is probably not what the constituency wants to
> imply.
> > >
> > > >   Many .org domain owners would find it extremely costly to switch
> domain
> > > > names, and are vulnerable to abusive pricing practices of the .org
> registry.
> > >
> > > This statement applies to all domain registrants.  It does not
> distinguish
> > > .org registrants at all.
> > >
> > > >4. The ICANN staff should provide the NCC with a memorandum explaining
> how
> > > >the existing .org domain name holders will be protected from abusive
> > > >pricing, after .org is reassigned.
> > >
> > > Rather than defining a broad, difficult problem and then tell others
> they
> > > need to solve it, this group should formulate a solution before
> declaring
> > > tht it needs to be solved.
> > >
> > > d/
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> > > Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> > > tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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