Re: [registrars] UPDATE

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Oops...hit the wrong button - completed message follows...

> (2) I have had some inquiries from registrars concerning the .NAME TLD
> proposal. Today the ICANN Board is meeting to discuss this proposal. The
> registrars held a special meeting in Stockholm to discuss this issue.
ICANN
> has posted a letter from Amadeu detailing many of the concerns raised by
the
> registrars in attendance in Stockholm. This letter can be viewed at:
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/secretarys-notice-19jul01.htm. Rita Rodin's
> response on behalf of the registry operator can be found at:
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/rodin-letter-to-touton-26jul01.htm. I
> have not been able to devote a significant amount of bandwidth to this
issue
> personally. However, it "appears" that the Registry Operator has agreed to
> provide all e-mail forwarding services through ICANN accredited
registrars,
> as opposed to directly to consumers. For those registrars that have raised
> this issue both currently and in the past, could you please comment to the
> constituency on the proposed modifications that have been made.

My only issue with the contract as tabled is with the pricing schedule.
Commercial email vendors are typically providing full POP/SMTP/Web email
services for less than $4.00 per year. Even with maximum volume discounts
taken into effect, the best GNR is proposing to offer is $15.00 per year -
and this is just for mail forwarding. Pricing for simple mail forwarding
only is less than $0.10 (yes, ten cents) per mailbox forward per month.
Typically, the mail outsourcers will bundle mailforwarding in with their
full featured accounts.

Registrars must determine whether or not the attributes of a) shared SLD
mail service and b) 120 day email address reservation is worth a more than
ten-fold premium over current market prices.

A description of the email service can be found at
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appc-1-03jul01.htm#d

Their current pricing proposal can be found at
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appg-03jul01.htm#5

To the other points raised by Amadeu, etc. Tucows is not concerned with the
movement of the email service to the registry layer in order to ensure
shared SLD email service. This is actually a pretty neat feature that solves
a lot of the usage problems originally associated with the .name
proposition. As long as they are compelled to offer this service through
registrars, this arrangement seems very reasonable.

I hope however that something can be done with their proposed price
schedule.

-rwr