Re: [ga] Thumbs Down on Revised .BIZ, .INFO AND .ORG Registry Agreements

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

domain names also need to remain affordable for people worldwide, not just to be used to get the most they can from american corporations. Everyone should have equal opportunity for good domain names on a first-come, first-served basis, not be sold to the highest bidder. That is what increases competition.

Not interested in promoting more competition between just registars and registries but for the average user.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: George Kirikos ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Cc: revised-biz-info-org-agreements@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Thumbs Down on Revised .BIZ, .INFO AND .ORG Registry Agreements


  Where is there anything to do with price caps being placed on these registries.
  I thought the whole idea was free enterprise. Not socialism. I know the white papers were based upon the idea of increasing competition not restricting it.

  e

  George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Hello,

    Another set of revised contract proposals was posted at:

    http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24oct06.htm

    Yet again, this is another attempt to sneak unwanted things through in
    a hurried fashion before the ICANN Meetings in Sao Paulo, where new
    Board members would be taking the place of some existing ones and where
    the public would have the benefit of the PDP'06 report.

    These new proposals put in 10% annual price increases, in a time when
    technological costs are FALLING, and continue the anti-competitive
    presumptive renewal, and use by registries of private traffic data.
    Furthermore, the contracts leave a huge loophole in them once more to
    renegotiate fees based on the economic expert's report. Instead of
    waiting to see what that report says, the registries want to now lock
    in at least 10% annual fee increases! If that expert later says that a
    tender process should be in place, to rebid operation of the registry
    to have lower prices that benefit consumers, it's too late, as the
    contracts contain presumptive renewal. If on the other hand a biased
    "expert" suggest that price caps should be removed or that differential
    pricing should be allowed, the registries would be willing to go forth
    with that. Once again, a "heads we win, tails you lose" contract in
    favour of the incumbent registry operators.

    These proposals should be denied, and instead the Board should wait
    until after Sao Paulo, as per the GNSO council vote. 

    Sincerely,

    George Kirikos
    http://www.kirikos.com/





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/494 - Release Date: 10/24/06