ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] DC hearing,,, NO Posting Limit today

  • To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] DC hearing,,, NO Posting Limit today
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:43:31 -0700 (PDT)

There is NO FIVE POST LIMIT for today's news

--- On Wed, 9/23/09, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] DC hearing on new TLDs at 10 am today (September 23rd)
To: "GNSO GA Mailing List" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 9:11 AM

Hi Kim,

--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Kim Davies <kim.davies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Lets assume I agree with your supposition, I would want to
> know if there is
> a way to address it. In your view, is there a way these
> externalities could
> be priced into the models of new TLDs so there is no
> subsidisation?

Let's not pretend that I've not already addressed these issues in my past very 
detailed comments. ICANN simply ignores public comments. The statements by 
ICANN officials are condescending to the public who've voiced very thoughtful 
objections over the entire process and reversals of policy that are against the 
public interest.

Notice you didn't comment whatsoever about price caps, and the debate we had in 
2006. Yet, the DAG guidebooks are a total betrayal of the public in that regard 
(and others).

But for those who aren't from ICANN, you can see the past analysis from Tim 
Berners Lee that I deconstructed at:


Or you could look at my detailed submission at:


which talked explicitly about the concept of "easements", which directly 
addresses "externalities" with pretty pictures, too.

Or one could read all my past comments that are linked to from the comment at:


Now, if you want to be constructive, please explain to me why ICANN thinks it's 
perfectly fine that gTLDs (via the "equal treatment clause", even existing 
gTLDs, not just new TLDs) should be able to raise the renewal price on any 
domain to any price they desire, e.g. $1 billion/yr for Google.com, $10 
million/yr for redcross.org, etc. How is that in the public interest, allowing 
monopoly registries to gouge existing registrants? 

ICANN talks about lowering prices through competition. That *sounds* great. 
Notice that price caps won't prevent prices from falling --- it only protects 
consumers from prices going up! If ICANN and new TLD advocates *truly* believe 
that prices will go down with new TLDs, why don't they prove it by putting in a 
price cap of say twice the dot-com registry price? That "caps the greed" of 
registry operators to twice VeriSign's greed level. And it lets those who truly 
think prices will go down to get their shot at running a registry at a price 
below VeriSign, since they obviously would not be hurt in any way by such a cap.

The only people hurt by such a cap would be people who *falsely claim* they 
want a new TLD in order to bring about lower prices through competition. New 
TLDs want their costs (i.e. fees paid to ICANN) locked in via their contracts 
with ICANN. Why can't consumers/registrants get the same protection and 

BTW, notice ICANN stopped publishing the size of their losses from speculation 
with their reserve fund, as noted in my comments at:


Perhaps ICANN will have more legitimacy when they stop covering up inconvenient 
truths and their past mistakes, and start to become accountable. Maybe you can 
explain why ICANN actually *removed* data from their charts and footnotes? I 
mentioned this to Rod Beckstrom directly via email, who did nothing. It looks 
like ICANN staff has done a great job of "indoctrinating" him over the past few 
months in the "ways of ICANN" -- I expect very little will change under his 
lack of leadership in the coming years.


George Kirikos


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>