Breach of contract of any of the obligations as a Registry is one of the clauses that nullifies the presumption of renewal in the current gTLD RA including .net.



-James



-----Original Message-----

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever

Sent: 31 May 2017 12:35

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Proposed comment on .NET RA



Hi Milton and Vidushi,



Interesting discussion. Milton seems to say that the options are binary:

either there is presumption of renewal, or there is an auction.



But as far as I understand currently there is a presumption of renewal even if there is a material breach of contract. The standards for renewal seems to be very low, which is why one could argue that it is anti-competetive, and in the bad for the end-user. There seem to be very few incentives for the operator to comply in good faith.



Would it perhaps be an idea to improve the standards for renewal?



Best,



Niels



On 05/30/2017 10:54 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> 

> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> I had a few follow up questions: first, do you disagree with the fact 

>> that Verisign is a monopoly?

> 

> I do. If you're going to dip in to economic regulatory issues, you need to use relevant terms with precision. A monopoly means a single supplier.  Verisign is not the only supplier of gTLDs. Monopoly does not mean "big" and it does not even mean "larger than anyone else." There are now hundreds of competitors. Verisign's market share declined 6%, from 52.5% to 46.5%, in one year alone (2014 - the most recent year I could find data for easily). Thus, competitive alternatives are making inroads. I think this is the statistic for gTLDs, but obviously COM and NET compete with ccTLDs in many countries as well. If you add ccTLDs, the market share goes down to something like 32%, last time I looked. 

> 

>> Second, if having certainty over ownership is the goal, why not have 

>> a reasonable expectation of renewal with a mandatory re-bid, as has 

>> been proposed several times in the past?

> 

> I am sorry, but this sounds like an incoherent proposal to me. Describe what it means to have a "reasonable expectation of renewal" and also have a "re-bid"? Perhaps we are using terms differently. To me, a re-bid means that an auction is held and whoever offers the lowest price gets to run the domain. A "reasonable expectation of renewal" means you get to keep the domain without a re-bid unless you do something seriously wrong. You can't have both. Either the TLD is renewed or it is re-bid. 

> 

>> Doesn't the competition aspect suffer under the existing presumptive 

>> renewal framework?

> 

> No. Presumptive renewal means that TLD operators who attract business 

> get to benefit from the business they win. This encourages them to 

> compete against other TLDs on price, service or both.  Competition 

> between TLDs is fairly robust now, although obviously those who 

> entered the market 20 years ago have more

> 

> Question for you: should ICANN re-bid the delegation for the .IN ccTLD?

> 



--

Niels ten Oever

Head of Digital



Article 19

www.article19.org



PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4

                     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9