[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Mission creep and consumer protection

[Jonathan Weinberg]

Jamie -- 

	The registry contracts for all of the gTLDs set maximum registry
prices.  See, e.g.,
<http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/pro/registry-agmt-appg-11mar01.htm>
(Registry Operator Maximum Price Schedule for .PRO).

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg at msen.com

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, James Love wrote:

> I would like to respond to Milton's comments on who is doing what about
> various consumer protection issues.  I agree that there is attention to
> issues that concern rival registrars, such as slaming issues.   But I
> haven't seen much about how registry prices are regulated by ICANN.  If
> there is a solution to this, I would like to know what it is, particularly
> given some big differences in registry prices in different tlds, and the
> fact that historical policies on .org, .net and .com were determined by DOC,
> but DOC was not involved in pricing of the new TLDs and pricing of ccTLDs
> have been all over the map.    Jamie
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
> To: <love at cptech.org>; <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <tbyfield at panix.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Mission creep and consumer protection
> 
> 
> > >>> "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> 02/10/02 12:45PM >>>
> > > there is a difference between doing things in such a way that does not
> > > harm consumers and becoming a consumer protection agency. The first
> > > is a policy issue and I'm all ears for input. The second is mission
> creep,
> >
> > There may be a difference, but it sits somewhere on a slippery slope.
> > The "transfers" task force provides a perfect example. Is Verisign
> > abusing its hold on registrants by refusing to let go of names that
> > people want to transfer? Or is Verisign protecting people against
> > "slammers" who try to transfer names without authorization?
> >
> > More deeply, if it is ICANN's job to create and enforce a
> > vertical separation between registrar and registry in order to
> > encourage "competition" and "portability" of domain names -
> > a job it aggressively assumed from its earliest days -
> > then along with that goes the responsibility to define a fair,
> > secure and efficient procedure for transfering names.
> > Consumer protection has to be an element of that.
> >
> > Once ICANN has gotten into the business of defining and
> > enforcing competition policy why shouldn't suppliers come to
> > it and complain that certain practices are anti-competitive?
> > And if suppliers can come to ICANN asking it to regulate the
> > industry differently (and believe me, they do it daily)
> > then why can't consumers come to it and complain about suppliers?
> >
> > The only problem I have with what Jamie is saying is the
> > "Rip Van Winkle" element:
> >
> > He is assuming that no one else in NCDNHC has noticed it. In
> > fact, we have been on this for some time. Some
> > people are just waking up to it.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg at msen.com