Re: [ga] New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2

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

George and all,

  My response interspersed below...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The author's post seems to boil down to a concern for
> > the renewal price
> > of a domain name, as that price could potentially
> > disadvantage a
> > registrant who has built up brand equity in its domain
> > name.  NeuStar
> > sympathizes with this comment and has suggested to ICANN
> > and others in
> > numerous conversations that perhaps a cap on renewal
> > pricing for all
> > TLDs is appropriate and warranted.  After all, if the
>
> Renewal price caps are a basic protection mechanism, and would be a start 
> towards increased price protection. However, they are not enough.

Percisely correct!

>
>
> In particular, registry operators would be incented to find ways to get 
> valuable domain names deleted, so that they could raise the prices. For 
> example, Afilias implemented a .INFO Abuse Policy:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/86215_potential_danger_ahead_dot_info_policy/
>
> which gives it sole discretion to define what constitutes "abuse." If that 
> policy was widespread in important registries, I would not want VeriSign 
> deciding whether one of my domain names was "abusive" when they know that if 
> they made that determination, they could raise the price on one of my 
> dot-coms from $7/yr to $1 million/yr. I'm sure Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and 
> others would feel the same way (Afilias, for example, gets to have sole 
> discretion over the definition of spam, and certainly all the companies in 
> the world that have user-generated content, free webmail, or webservices that 
> are subject to hacking would be at risk; e.g. your Apache webservers gets 
> hacked, you get flagged as "abusive" and the registry seizes your valuable 
> domain to auction for more money).

  The perfict storm, as it were...

>
>
> Furthermore, all expired domains would effectively be able to be auctioned by 
> the registry operator (i.e. through setting higher than normal registration 
> prices, like .tv). Once again, this is asking for a handout, a change to your 
> contract that only benefits Neustar. You signed a contract with ICANN, and 
> are looking for more. What are you giving up in exchange for "more"? You're 
> giving up nothing.

Exactly.  What's more such defines and/or demonstrates as is the historical
norm for NueStar, their near total lack of consideration for consumers/users
and/or registrants in particular.

>
>
> Those are the one-sided contract changes that the registry operators always 
> seek. That's why the only solution is regular tenders for operation of the 
> registry, just like the DOJ suggested (and which I've long advocated). 
> Registry operators could compete to run .com or other gTLDs, and whoever bids 
> the lowest (for a fixed level of service performance specified in the tender) 
> wins the contract. Very basic stuff that companies do all the time in 
> procurement, but apparently too basic for ICANN, because there's no money in 
> it for ICANN. The process is so simple that it doesn't require an annual $60 
> million budget and hundreds of staff.

  Yes indeed.  But companies such as NueStar and Afilias, as well as
GoDaddy, could care less and are mainly interested, if not exclusively
interested in feathering their own nest all the while ICANN is presupposed
to agree as the additional fees only benifits the $60m/year staff, and provides
for growth of same in terms of $$ and staff positions.  Smells allot like
a ponzi scheme to me...  Madoff would be proud, however perhaps
a bit disappointed as he will not financially additionally benifit.

>
>
> Notice with tenders, there are no incentives for registry operators to seize 
> valuable domains, since they're all the same price. All the benefits flow to 
> the consumers. Competition between prospective registry operators maximizes 
> consumer benefits, and registry operators receive "normal" profits. The most 
> efficient registry operators will be the ones to be awarded the contracts, 
> since they can operate the TLD at the lowest cost.

  Yes but "Normal profits" will decrease if more gTLD's and IDN gTLD's
are added so as to provide for robust competition, which companies
contracted to ICANN now, would be harder pressed to compete
viably.

>
>
> Until there's a Domain Registrant's Statement of Rights that gives 
> registrants far greater protection than exists today, you'll have to get in 
> line behind us when looking for one-sided contractual changes.

Here here!

>
>
> 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