Re: [ga] New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all,

  Nice catch George.  Any yes this is voluminous.  As such, I can't
see any reasonable way in which it could be properly implemented
or adhered to.

  Additionally, from my VERY brief reading, it seems clear that there is
a move here to claim a TLD as property in the IP sense.  That is not
current or in conjunction with current Trademark law, and as such
isn't implimentable at all.  There are now no delineated user or
registrant protections what so ever, which is also not in line with
community input.

  I could go on and on here just from my VERY brief reading,
but I believe that it's clear that the most important community input
was mostly ignored in this draft, as it was in the first draft.

  Seems to me given the tone of this draft, an attempt to nullify the
need to fix the RAA's properly is part of the overall goal of this
2nd draft.  Not very ethical, IMO.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> As predicted, the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (version 2) has been
> released at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-2-en.htm  (scoll down)
>
> and an analysis of the comments to the prior version has been posted at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-18feb09-en.htm
>
> The documents are voluminous.
>
> I glanced at the revised draft Base Agreement, and it's clearly
> unacceptable as there continue to be no price caps in place to protect
> registrants, see section 2.9 of
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-redline-18feb09-en.pdf
>
> This is a backdoor way of allowing existing registry operators (e.g.
> com/net/org/biz/info) to get unlimited pricing power of existing domain
> names through .tv-style tiered pricing. Obviously it seems ICANN is only
> listening to registry operators and prospective registry operators, given
> they've even LOWERED fees for registry operators (see Section 6.1) Note
> that price controls were a major source of comments by the public, see the
> bottom of page 121 to 123 of:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv1-analysis-public-comments-18feb09-en.pdf
>
> Note in particular that Neustar (operator of .biz) is on public record
> (page 123) stating they want elimination of price caps for .biz under the
> "equitable treatment" clause of existing registry agreements if other
> registries get it:
>
> "Any material changes for the newer, no-price capped TLDs regarding
> vertical separation and equal access in general must be applied to NeuStar
> â?? this is required under the .biz Registry Agreement and ICANNâ??s Bylaws.
> Price caps are appropriate for larger TLDs that have a much higher
> percentage of the market and are not appropriate for gTLDs that do not
> have any real market power."
>
> If you are existing registrant, even the smaller TLDs have market power
> over you, as you are "locked in" to that domain name and face high
> switching costs (e.g. if you had operated abc.biz for 5 years, and Neustar
> suddenly decides to raise the renewal price to $1 million/year, that will
> definitely affect you, and is not something where "competitive forces" are
> at play).
>
> I'll have more detailed comments once I finish reading all of the
> documents.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.leap.com/

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827