[ga] .biz, .info and .org want to be like .tv?

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Below is a copy of the comments I just submitted regarding the proposed
.biz, .info and .org agreements. See:

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm

I've only skimmed the contracts (they're very long), but one possibly
major issue, even worse than the proposed .com agreement, is that the
elimination of price controls in these contracts appears to allow the
registries to price discriminate on a domain by domain basis. As you
review the proposed agreements carefully, I'd ask that you try to find
anything that disputes this (I couldn't, reading through it carefully
-- I found only a reference to "Exhibit E", and if there's nothing to
stop Exhibit E from becoming a long table with different prices for
each domain, then we essentially have the creation of new .TV clones --
even worse, these .TV clones have entrenched clients!!

If I'm right, the registries would have the power to expropriate
domains over a 10 year period, and hand over the domains to the highest
bidder (or simply keep them for Sitefinder-like parking). For example,
if .biz wants to take sex.biz or movies.biz, they could announce that
the new pricing is $10 million per year and add that to a table in
Exhibit E. The existing registrant could renew at the existing rate
($6/yr!) for 10 years. After 10 years, they'd have no choice to pay $10
million, or give up the name. Most likely, they'd give up the name.
Then, they could lower the pricing in Exhibit E systematically, like a
Dutch auction until the highest bidder appears. Or, perhaps a registry
like .org doesn't appreciate that Pussy.org is being used for adult
content, instead of kittens. They could change the price to $100
million per year, and rid themselves of a registrant. Or, perhaps they
don't like the ACLU, and could make ACLU.org be $100 million per year,
and get rid of them after 10 years. Or, the Democrats could be removed
from democrats.org. With price discrimination power on a domain by
domain basis, we'd be creating new forms of registry power and abuse --
new fiefdoms.

Your feedback is appreciated. 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

--- George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: George Kirikos
> Subject: .biz, .info and .org want to be like .tv?
> To: biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, 
>     org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> The proposed changes to the .biz, .info and .org registry agreements
> are entirely unacceptable, for all the same reasons that have been
> expressed in the past over the .com proposed settlement with VeriSign
> (see www.cfit.info or the comment board for the .com settlement
> proposal). While the existing ICANN Board might have foolishly
> accepted
> those terms, over the nearly unanimous protest of the broader
> community, the .com proposed agreement has yet to even be approved by
> the Department of Commerce. It is amusing to see the registry
> operators
> for .biz, .info and .org racing to try to capitalize upon a lame duck
> ICANN Board. The composition of the ICANN Board will change due to
> the
> end of term of various board members, and next year the votes that
> approved the .com settlement might by very different. These registry
> operators have not even waited to see if the changes to the .com
> agreement will be formally accepted by the DoC, and stand up to
> litigation. 
> 
> This should be a lesson to the Board that bad decision-making has
> many
> consequences. This is further justification for continuing oversight
> of
> ICANN.
> 
> Furthermore, if ICANN accepts these contractual changes before the
> DoC
> has spoken, all hell will break loose, because VeriSign will then
> have
> the argument that they're only seeking what other registries have
> been
> granted. But, isn't that the argument of the .biz, .info, and .org
> operators? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> 
> ICANN should not be in the business of creating perpetual unregulated
> monopolies via the granting of presumptive renewal without price
> caps.
> As has been said before by others, registry operators can have a
> choice. They can have presumptive renewal, but with price controls
> based on cost recovery (i.e. like a utility). Or, they can have no
> price controls, but be subject to a regular rebidding process (where
> a
> fixed price during the term of the contract exists). But, to give the
> registry operators both presumptive renewal AND no price controls
> boggles the mind. Have ICANN staff and Board members ever taken a
> single business course? Have they ever studied economics? This is
> basic
> first principles stuff. It is clear that the people negotiating on
> behalf of the registry operators have studied economics, as they are
> winning big with these proposed changes, and will see their profits
> rise substantially, at the community's expense. ICANN loses its
> legitimacy as a representative of the community when it knowingly
> permits this to happen to the detriment of registrants.
> 
> Essentially, these new agreements have the effective of SELLING .biz,
> .info, and .org gTLDs to the existing registry operators, without any
> form of auction, but simply through a poor negotiation. Even Tuvalu
> *sold* .tv, yet ICANN simply gives away the TLD!
> 
> Just to see how terrible the new proposed contracts are, which
> entirely
> lift price controls (which is more freedom than even VeriSign gets,
> who
> can't raise prices more than 7% per year), I could not find anything
> in
> the new contract to even compel the registries to charge a fixed
> price
> per domain name! There is reference to "Exhibit E", but there is
> nothing preventing the registry operators from changing the simple
> formula in Exhibit E into a more complex formula or a
> domain-by-domain
> list, to price discriminate on the basis of the quality of the domain
> name, or any other basis (e.g. maybe the registry does not like the
> current registrant, and wants to charge them more money). Thus, the
> registries could emulate .tv, and charge more for sex.biz or sex.info
> or business.info or games.info than lesser quality domains. The
> registry could put into Exhibit E that sex.info or sex.biz or sex.org
> are $100,000 per year. Since section 3.1(b)(v)(B) prohibits consensus
> policies from touching upon "pricing", it's .TV all over again. 
> 
> This is what happens when you have a staff and Board which is out of
> touch with registrants.
> 
> For all the above reasons, these proposed agreements should be
> rejected.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>