Re: [ga] A Windfall for VeriSign?

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

elliot noss wrote:
> I will post on the forum at some later point, but would like to be clear 
> on one point here. this not only should, but MUST be a "windfall" for 
> ICANN. now you and I may view "windfall" differently. in this case it 
> would mean ICANN needing to generate significantly less, and perhaps 
> none, of their budget from registrants going forward. to me this means 
> revenue for ICANN and a windfall for registrants.
On the other hand, by creating a differential pricing structure for 
short domain names, ICANN would be inserting its controlling and 
manipulating hands directly into the operation of the domain name 
marketplace.
And to do so not for any purpose that is related to the technical 
stability of the internet but, instead, to shape the business and 
economic landscape of the domain name marketplace in accord with the 
vision and desires of its incumbent "stakeholders", which exclude, 
notably, the people who actually buy and pay for domain name products.
Your company has been one of the brightest lights of the domain name 
industry.  I don't like seeing ICANN constrain you and your ideas so 
that you have to ask permission (knowing that it will often be a futile 
exercise) before you can engage in what are lawful business practices 
selling lawful products on terms that reflect a mutual agreement between 
you and your customers.
Through this proposed activity ICANN is suggesting that it has the right 
to reach into Tucows [and other registrars] and manipulate the prices 
you charge for certain domain name products.  That is, assuming that 
ICANN even allows these short names to be sold via registrars at all.
(Indeed ICANN has already inserted its regulatory apparatus rather 
deeply into the domain name marketplace - ICANN has forced Tucows [and 
other registrars] to incorporate the fiat and unjustified fiat registry 
fees into your own prices, and ICANN has required that you sell domain 
name products wrapped with ICANN imposed terms and conditions without 
regard for what the domain name buyers want.)
At some point someone is going to raise the question, in a forum in 
which it can not be ignored:  What is the source of authority for ICANN 
to manipulate prices and products in the worlds only viable marketplace 
of domain names?
In many parts of the world, absent such authority, that kind of 
marketplace manipulation is, particularly when it comes about, as it 
does in ICANN, through agreements among incumbents, considered contrary 
to the public interest and is often unlawful.
ICANN was created under the banner of promoting competition and market 
forces, not denying and coercing them.
(As for the the windfall, personally I think names like o.com ought to 
go, at normal prices, to the heirs of O'Henry or Willa Cather [Oh 
Pioneers] rather than some neuvo upstart reseller of surplus stuff that 
nobody wanted to buy.  But I'm not going to hold my breath for that.)
Moreover, ICANN has become a bloated regulatory body with a budget that 
is approaching that of the dreaded ITU.  As long as ICANN can pull 
revenue out of windfalls (as it did once before when it got the RIRs to 
cover one of ICANN's near-insolvency events) it can continue its 
cancerous growth.  If it's money stream becomes constrained then we 
might see the end of ICANN's empire building.
                --karl--