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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What I want to know is if these are public comments, why am I emailing them? How many comments will not make it to a public page?

Here is what I commented;

To this part I respond. dot org was meant to be for organizations and the operators have done nothing at all, nor were they required by ICANN to do, anything about making sure legitimate nonprofits have a tld they can use without competing for domain names with companies and porn sites.

This part of the agreement;

Lifting of Price Controls on Registry Services. Following extensive consideration and discussion, each of the proposed new .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG registry agreements provide for the lifting of price controls formerly imposed on the pricing of registry services. However, in order to protect incumbent domain name registrants and allow time for planning by those in the registry and registrar communities, the form of registry-registrar agreement proposed with each of the new registry agreements requires six months advance notice by the registry operator of any price increase in registry services. This is consistent with the notice period required under the registry-registrar agreement implemented with the 2005 .NET registry agreement, and the registry-registrar agreement included with the proposed new .COM registry agreement.

This means that when the operators of dot org figure out they can make more money raising domain prices on existing customers than they will on new registrations they can hold all their customers hostage. 

Pay up or move to a new tld! Losing all page rank, search engine placement, and link popularity unless we pay up.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.blogs.pn



Please take this opportunity to add this email address to your list to trusted address (maybe called your white list) so it is not detected as spam.

Again, ICANN has chosen NO POLICY over good policy. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: [ga] .biz, .info and .org want to be like .tv?


> 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/
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 7/28/06
> 
>