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

[Jonathan Weinberg]

	Good point re .coop:  I spoke too broadly before.  It's only in
connection with the unsponsored gTLDs that the registry contracts include
price caps.  The registry contracts for the sponsored TLDs don't seem to;
I assume the theory is that the sponsoring organizations can be trusted,
in setting prices, to act for the benefit of the communities they purport
to serve.  (If I'm wrong about the absence of price caps in the
sponsored-TLD contracts, somebody please let me know.)

	.tv is a ccTLD.  ICANN has not sought to regulate ccTLD pricing.

Jon



On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, James Love wrote:

> >From Netsol
> 
>     airtravel.tv    $1,500 per year
>     fleet.tv              450 per year
>     airlines.coop   2 years for $160
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg at mail.msen.com>
> To: "James Love" <love at cptech.org>
> Cc: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>; <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>;
> <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <tbyfield at panix.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Mission creep and consumer protection
> 
> 
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg at msen.com