CRITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Entire Domainer Community

[Rubber Duck]

Immoral.... no doubt. Illegal? Well, the lawyers could probaly argue either way. Measuring traffic is trivial for a registry (they don't nead EXACT visitor counts, just to know the difference between a 1k and 10k and 100k visitor/day site). And of course, they could always argue that they are really charging based on some hidden forumla that balances brandability, shortness, and whatever other BS to determine your price. Of course it *should* be illegal, but think of how much in legal fees you could afford if you owned every .com, and could charge the 50 million residents whatever you wanted in yearly lease fees, on a resident-by-resident basis.

I don't think there is a big issue with dot com. Corporate America could hammer Verisign back into the Stone Age with the the clout that would undoubtedly lined up to slap them down.

The problem comes with dot biz and dot info. How many companies with serious resources own these?

How on Earth can they argue the that can charge on Brandability when it is your Brand they are talking about. The legal genius who thought that one up defies any efforts at comprehension!

 

[Irish31]

If this is only for newly registered domains, I think there is much less concern.

If they are shady about what happens with registered domains at the time this new "system" gets implimented, well, as much as I would like to put my faith in fellow man, I have no doubt it's a nice way of setting up some nasty surprises down the line.

If this is done right, I think it can be a good thing. Most likely, it won't be though, so it probably shouldn't be done at all.

Jay

 

[Rubber Duck]

If this is only for newly registered domains, I think there is much less concern.

If they are shady about what happens with registered domains at the time this new "system" gets implimented, well, as much as I would like to put my faith in fellow man, I have no doubt it's a nice way of setting up some nasty surprises down the line.

If this is done right, I think it can be a good thing. Most likely, it won't be though, so it probably shouldn't be done at all.

Jay

If it is for New Registrations of course you are right, but again there would be nothing much to tier would there? There is hardly a new reg dot com out that apart from IDN that is worth more than reg fee.

 

[Irish31]

Well that's just my point. If they want to bleed price increases into the market for .net/.info/.org/.biz, perhaps they believe giving everyone a "warning shot" is the way to go.

Anything that existed before this policy comes in, is fine. Anything afterwards, it will be a bit of a crapshoot (again, i'm just guessing, who knows what they have in store).

My fear is that even if they say this, they will leave some loophole to eventually change it towards anything, so any domain in those suffixes is fair game.

While i'm "not" going to post alot of negativity towards this until I hear the full story, and I don't think anyone should, common sense tells me that if it's not broke, don't fix it.

I don't care if people reg crap names, more money for the registrar's and ICANN. If they was implemented aganist new registrations then yes, people in the know would be less likely to take risks on alot of iffy names.

But how is that really going to affect most of us anyways?

Hopefully we hear some information on this soon, was the meeting not held last Thursday?


Jay

 

[Duke]

Minutes were just posted today. From Lowdown section at DNJournal:

ICANN has released the minutes from their Sept. 7 board meeting in which widely opposed new contracts for the .org, .info and .biz registries were discussed. The minutes (at http://www.icann.org/announcements/comments-summary-07sep06.htm) detail the wide range of objections posted against the contracts during a 30-day public comment period that ended August 28. The board was told that a "majority" opposed approval of the contracts which is technically true, but the board would have been given a much truer picture of the depth of opposition if they had been told that sentiment against the proposals was virtually unanimous with more than 1,000 unique posters against approval and less than 5 in favor. In one important line it was noted that "Staff reported during the Board meeting that negotiations with the registries are already underway regarding clarification of the issues surrounding differential pricing." Differential pricing is not prohibited in the proposed contracts which means the registries could charge different prices for different domains (as well as charging any amount they wished for any domain renewal or registration).

 

[acegoet]

Signed. Please keep everyone informed.

 

[mjreine]

Signed!

This would disrupt our economy and shift the balance of power to those who have more disposable income to spend on names and discriminate against the mom and pop stores who now have their identities branded on these names who might not be able to afford the branding website for their small shop. This is injust and doesnt serve the peoples needs and wishes. It serves the registrar and ianas agenda.

 

[GeorgeK]

Minutes were just posted today. From Lowdown section at DNJournal:

ICANN has released the minutes from their Sept. 7 board meeting in which widely opposed new contracts for the .org, .info and .biz registries were discussed. The minutes (at http://www.icann.org/announcements/comments-summary-07sep06.htm) detail the wide range of objections posted against the contracts during a 30-day public comment period that ended August 28.

Those are not the minutes. Board meeting minutes are released at:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/

The minutes for the September 7th meeting are supposed to be released within 5 business days of the meeting, so should be coming soon.

What was posted was simply the staff summary to the Board of public comments.

 

[Duke]

Those are not the minutes. Board meeting minutes are released at:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/

The minutes for the September 7th meeting are supposed to be released within 5 business days of the meeting, so should be coming soon.

What was posted was simply the staff summary to the Board of public comments.

Thanks for the correction George, much appreciated.

 

[DomeBase]

For your info: The U.S. Senate committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development Subcommittee will hold hearings to examine the future of ICANN and the governance of the Internet on Wednesday, Sep. 20, 2006 at 10 a.m.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/one_item_and_teasers/committee_hearings.htm

The members of this committee are:
Stevens, Ted (AK) , Chairman
McCain, John (AZ)
Burns, Conrad (MT)
Lott, Trent (MS)
Hutchison, Kay (TX)
Snowe, Olympia (ME)
Smith, Gordon (OR)
Ensign, John (NV)
Allen, George (VA)
Sununu, John (NH)
DeMint, James (SC)
Vitter, David (LA)
Inouye, Daniel (HI), Ranking Member
Rockefeller, Jay (WV)
Kerry, John (MA)
Dorgan, Byron (ND)
Boxer, Barbara (CA)
Nelson, Bill (FL)
Cantwell, Maria (WA)
Lautenberg, Frank (NJ)
Nelson, E. (NE)
Pryor, Mark (AR)

-------------------------------------------

In terms of how to act on the above informaiton...

It would be very helpful for us to know whether ICANN is still entertaining the possibility of granting unlimited price setting power to TLD-monopoly registries before this hearing happens. If the Board were to clearly state that contracts that allow such unlimited price setting power are out of the question, then we could be much more upbeat in our comments and actions. I would love to switch from a "activist" role to a "work together" role.

However, trust has been eroded by the manner in which these consumer-unfriendly contracts have been negotiated (although not Board approved) by ICANN staff. They would have slipped through under the radar screen if it were not for whistleblower and consumer advocate George K.

There has been no clear statement from the ICANN Board that granting unlimited or differential pricing power to TLD-monopoly registries is unacceptable. What we do hear is that there are ongoing negotiations between ICANN staff and the registries. We do not know much about these negotiations. Uncertainty persists. So... we have to do what we have to do. Too much is at stake.

The ICANN board could reverse this if they take charge and reverse this unfortunate progression of events.

 

[DomeBase]

Suppose you are buying a house for $200,000 and taking out a 30-year mortgage for $150,000. Which of these three mortgage contracts would you be willing to sign (A,B, or C)?

A:

I hereby agree to borrow $150,000 from Trustus Registry Savings and Loan. I will repay it in equal monthly installments over the course of 30 years at an effective annual interest rate of 5%.

_____________________________
(your signature here)


B:

I hereby agree to borrow $150,000 from Trustus Registry Savings and Loan. I will repay it in equal monthly installments over the course of 30 years at a to-be-determined, variable interest rate that is deemed to be "reasonable" -- where what rate is "reasonable" shall be determined at the sole discretion of the Trustus Registry Savings and Loan.

_____________________________
(your signature here)

C:

I hereby agree to borrow $150,000 from Trustus Registry Savings and Loan and will repay it in equal monthly installments over the course of 30 years at an effective annual interest rate of 5% as long as my home is "actively" used -- where what defines"actively" shall be determined at the sole discretion of the Trustus Registry Savings and Loan. If they do not think that my home is sufficiently, actively used, then they can increase the interest rate to whatever they want it to be.

______________________________
(your signature here)


Now check your answer here:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/info-tld-agreement/msg00859.html

 

[JuniperPark]

I just had someone bidding on a .INFO at Sedo enter into the comments "I am not bidding more because ICANN is about to remove the registry fee cap", so damage is ALREADY being done by this issue.

 

[Irish31]

Sorry to hear that Juniper. Hopefully they just tell us what is happening soon so all this fear mongering and speculation can either be brought to light, or put to bed.


Jay

 

[David G]

Damage was done even earlier as we basically stopped developing new dot org websites (when the news was made public thanks to GeorgeK) due to the shadow of uncertainty over future renewals.

Why work hard and build-up a new site only to have the registry see it gets traffic and must be m,aking some money so the renewal fee goes from $7 to $70 or $700 as a result of your time and work?

I just had someone bidding on a .INFO at Sedo enter into the comments "I am not bidding more because ICANN is about to remove the registry fee cap", so damage is ALREADY being done by this issue.

 

[DomeBase]

Sorry to hear that Juniper. Hopefully they just tell us what is happening soon so all this fear mongering and speculation can either be brought to light, or put to bed. Jay

In addition to waiting to hear what they say, there are things that can be done to possibly influence what the outcome will be. If you have not already read http://www.BadForBusiness.org , please do so and consider signing.

It is a fine line between getting too excited about something that may not happen and properly sounding an alarm so that people can take steps to prevent something really bad from happening. I am fairly certain that if George K. had not been looking carefully at the proposed contracts, that they would have been quietly approved during the summer without any ruckus -- but then in the years to come we would have been shocked to see that the Registry had been given a blank check to set domain prices for whatever they wanted them to be. Oh... and for you folks who are smugly thinking that this does not apply to .COM? Take heed. Of the 1,000 or so responses on the ICANN Board, 99% were opposed to giving registries unlimited price increasing power. Of the 1% that supported the idea, guess who was among them? That's right. The .COM registry. If .INFO goes down in this, you can bet your bottom dollar that .COM will be asking ICANN for the same powers in the name of fairness and parity.

Oh... and many folks continue not to understand how the domain name distribution chain works. If the registry increases prices to registrars, then prices go up for *all* registrars. You can not escape by changing registrars. They all have to pay the registry.

What amazes me is how many domainers (and non-domainer small businesses) continue to be asleep on this issue. This thread is not even made into a sticky yet!

 

[David G]

.....What amazes me is how many domainers (and non-domainer small businesses) continue to be asleep on this issue. This thread is not even made into a sticky yet!

It's amazing why so many domainers, website owners and webmasters do not seem to realize the gravity of the issue.

It's also incredible most of the registrars did not appear to oppose the new agreement, with very little heard from them. For example, I wrote Bob Parsons about it with no response. BobParsons.com talks a lot about the new GoDaddy girl but not about the proposed ICANN contracts. Very odd priorities. Same with other registrars.

I draw the conclusion the registrars think they will also benefit from high renewals, perhaps a rebate or something.

 

[Irish31]

In addition to waiting to hear what they say, there are things that can be done to possibly influence what the outcome will be. If you have not already read http://www.BadForBusiness.org , please do so and consider signing.

It is a fine line between getting too excited about something that may not happen and properly sounding an alarm so that people can take steps to prevent something really bad from happening. I am fairly certain that if George K. had not been looking carefully at the proposed contracts, that they would have been quietly approved during the summer without any ruckus -- but then in the years to come we would have been shocked to see that the Registry had been given a blank check to set domain prices for whatever they wanted them to be. Oh... and for you folks who are smugly thinking that this does not apply to .COM? Take heed. Of the 1,000 or so responses on the ICANN Board, 99% were opposed to giving registries unlimited price increasing power. Of the 1% that supported the idea, guess who was among them? That's right. The .COM registry. If .INFO goes down in this, you can bet your bottom dollar that .COM will be asking ICANN for the same powers in the name of fairness and parity.

Oh... and many folks continue not to understand how the domain name distribution chain works. If the registry increases prices to registrars, then prices go up for *all* registrars. You can not escape by changing registrars. They all have to pay the registry.

What amazes me is how many domainers (and non-domainer small businesses) continue to be asleep on this issue. This thread is not even made into a sticky yet!

Signed

 

[Domagon]

...If .INFO goes down in this, you can bet your bottom dollar that .COM will be asking ICANN for the same powers in the name of fairness and parity...

True, but such a pricing scheme in . COM will never fly ... it will be shut down faster than sitefinder was.

There's a big constituency for .com - and that's the big difference.

Business will not tolerate such uncertainty / price-gouging, and will make that clear to politicians.

With all that said, I agree 100% that it's better to shut this proposal down now, if at all possible.

Ron

 

[carlton]

It's amazing why so many domainers, website owners and webmasters do not seem to realize the gravity of the issue.

It's also incredible most of the registrars did not appear to oppose the new agreement, with very little heard from them. For example, I wrote Bob Parsons about it with no response. BobParsons.com talks a lot about the new GoDaddy girl but not about the proposed ICANN contracts. Very odd priorities. Same with other registrars.

I draw the conclusion the registrars think they will also benefit from high renewals, perhaps a rebate or something.

Let me say that Tim Ruiz of GoDaddy.com did submit a letter of opposition (posted in the ICANN forum) and I am glad he did this. I believe GoDaddy also joined as a signatory on another letter representing a number of registrars who oppose the contracts (also on the ICANN forum). However, it would be great to hear Bob Parsons make a personal statement on the issue as well, and even better yet post his thoughts in his blog.

 

[sevent]

True, but such a pricing scheme in . COM will never fly ... it will be shut down faster than sitefinder was.

There's a big constituency for .com - and that's the big difference.

Business will not tolerate such uncertainty / price-gouging, and will make that clear to politicians.

With all that said, I agree 100% that it's better to shut this proposal down now, if at all possible.

Ron

This wouldn't necessarily be the case. Business (in most countries) already has to put up with all kinds of regulatory and other rent-seeking BS. Here in the US not long ago they passed the ADA, a business disaster that has probably cost over a trillion dollars in compliance by now. But it passed. And not long ago they passed Sarbanes Oxley, costing many companies millions of dollars last year.

Now keep in mind that any price increase would probably be gradual at first, following the "how to boil a frog alive" principle. So if the cost of renewing cars.com goes up to $100 then $500 then $2000 per year, do you think the CEO would even notice, let alone take time out of his schedule to protest?

Even at $10,000/year/name, domain names would represent just a sliver of the budget for large companies, especially if only the choice ones were charged at that amount, a more likely scenario then the registry trying to charge high prices for every typo and derative names the company has snapped up or hijacked.

Let's face it, the people with the highest probablity of getting screwed are us, domainers and small-scale web developers.