proposed NCUC response to the ICANN-VeriSign settlement

[Iliya Nickelt]

I agree to all parts of the statement. The big problem, as seen from
overseas, is that the generic TLD system equals to .com, maybe .net and
some noise. ICANN does not deal with this monopoly in a fair way if it
basically continues the status quo, allows verisign to have it their
way and recieves higher payments in return. "Quid custed custodies?" or
never let a monopoly be regulated by those who gain from it. I am not
so sure if those who should be concerned have noticed this, but ICANN
more and more seems to become a WTO case.

Maybe one could add to 3. [price caps]:
"Generous treatment of the most profitable registry by far that is at
the same time ICANNs main financial source is a dangerous way
to execute oversight."
   ...or something similar, I am open to everything.

Now a funny sidenote: US-citizens, who are all heavily in debt as we
are told, are probably not so good with numbers and tend to
underestimate the result of compound interest. Just for the fun of it,
I attached a graph that shows what 7% raise actually means. After I
plotted it I realised it was unfair not to take into account the
inflation and added a second graph of a 3.5% raise, which is soemwhat
nicer for Verisign. (Everybody who wants to argue about wether 3.5% is
a reasonable value for US inflation: go and draw your own graph.) But
ask yourself first: If you start with 10$ now, with an annual rise of
7%, where will you be in 2050?

	--iliya (I plan to be dead by then)

On 10 Nov 2005 at 19:08, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 3. We would like to see a policy development process on the issue of
> price caps for registries. Here again, arguments can be made for and
> against the elimination or relaxation of contractual price caps. The
> best policy probably would apply to all registries, or might depend on
> the market power of the relevant registry. This issue should not be
> resolved by the ICANN staff in secret bargaining sessions. Nor should it
> be resolved on a piecemeal basis. Moreover, all registries should be
> treated equally in this regard. Therefore a policy should be set via the
> ICANN process, and used as the basis for staff negotiations with
> registries.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: VeriSign_RegFee2050.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6952 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20051114/46d8cfeb/attachment.obj>