Long email below, but is certainly worth reading... <snip> > From: BC secretariat [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:15 PM > To: BC List > Subject: Vint Cerf/ICANN confirm my interpretation of .biz/info/org > proposed contracts -- > tiered/differential domain pricing would not be forbidden > > > From George Kirikos > > Hi folks, > > I finally got the "official" word from Vint Cerf of ICANN, "on the > record", > who confirmed that my interpretation is correct, that > differential/tiered > pricing on a domain-by-domain basis would not be forbidden under > the > .biz/info/org proposed contracts. This means that the registries > could > charge $100,000/yr for sex.biz, $25,000/yr for movies.org, etc. if > they > wanted to -- it would not be forbidden the way the proposed > contracts are > currently written. This would represent a powerful pricing weapon > for > registries, and a fundamental shift in possible domain name > pricing, that > could lead them to emulate .tv-style price schedules. > > One can read the proposed contracts at: > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm > > Vint said it would be "suicide" for a registry to do it, because > there'd be > the 6-month notice period to raise prices and the ability for > registrants > to renew for up to 10 years at "old prices", that supposedly > "protects" > registrants. Personally, as a business, my time horizon is a lot > longer > than 10 years. I wonder if Vint felt introducing "SiteFinder" was > suicide, > too....history has shown registries will do whatever they can get > away > with, in order to maximize profits long-term and short-term. > > I don't think Vint understands the business at all, to think that a > lag of > 10 years will deter a profit-maximizing registry, esp. VeriSign > should it > try to match this contractual precedent in .com (and history shows > VeriSign > will always try to get "more", especially if "another registry" is > able to > do something -- they used that tactic in .com renegotiations, > saying > various terms were already in the .net contract, for instance). > > Just to show one possible future, if PIR feels pressure or has a > desire to > clean up porn from .org, it could announce that pussy.org (check > its Alexa > ranking) will have its renewal price be $1 billion/yr. If it takes > 10 years > to do it, many would wait, and it would not be considered "suicide" > for > PIR. Who will stand against that as "we're protecting the internet > and > children from porn", PIR might argue? Leaving this temptation in > the > contract will likely become a slippery slope, in my opinion, > leading to > profit-maximizing behaviour by registries to emulate .tv. Acting in > the > interests of their shareholders, registries are *compelled* to > maximize > profits. > > It can be used as a political weapon, too. If a registry > disagreed with > the views or content of a website for which they were the registry, > they > could raise the renewal price to $100 billion/yr. 10 years later, > that > website would not exist at that address, and nothing in the > contracts would > forbid this pricing behaviour. More likely, it would be used for > profit > maximization (if Google.com is a $100 billion company, "certainly > they are > benefiting from their domain name, and can afford our $1 billion/yr > renewal > fee" one might say -- see the net neutrality debate and tiered > pricing for > websites that phone and cable companies are pushing....). How far > away is > tiered domain name pricing?? > > ICANN would be opening up a Pandora's Box through this contractual > loophole, to not forbid .tv style pricing. The mistake would not be > able to > be corrected, as the contracts explicitly say that Consensus > Policies do > not apply to pricing issues. Since presumptive renewal exists in > these new > deals, the contracts are essentially going to live with ICANN > forever, if > approved. > > If this pricing power eventually got extended to .com, nothing > would > prevent the renewal fee for Yahoo.com, GoDaddy.com, Google.com, > Tucows.com, > Business.com, Sex.com or any other domain in a registry with > similar terms > to reach $1 billion per year, or any other price that VeriSign or > other > registry operators wanted to maximize its profits (net-neutrality > debate is > similar, for bandwidth pricing to websites). You can imagine my > VeriSignSucks.com won't last longer than 10 years, if VeriSign had > the > power to raise the renewal fee to $1 billion/year. :) > > I believe that it is very important that this loophole be closed, > in order > to not create the precedent that VeriSign could later exploit for > .com, and > to protect registrants of .biz/org/info. If it is "suicide", as > Vint > suggested, then surely a registry that would supposedly never use > the power > would agree to remove the temptation by adding an appropriate term > to the > contract. A registry not willing to add that term....well, you know > what > they might be tempted to do later. If your business horizon is the > next > quarter, this won't impact you. If it's beyond 10 years, it could > impact > you. Can you live with that uncertainty?? > > Feel free to spread the word on the mailing lists or media, and > contact > Vint ([log in to unmask]) or John Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]) or other > ICANN > staffers if you want to confirm things and voice your concerns. > Time is of > the essence, as the public comment period ends next Monday. > Registrants DO > NOT know what is coming (the public comment board is almost empty), > as it's > the summer holidays! (typical ICANN tactic, introduce 500+ page > contracts > for public comment when everyone is on holiday) > > Public comments can be sent using the addresses at: > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm > > (be sure to send to all 3 email addresses for all 3 contracts, and > also > click the link in the email ICANN will send you to authenticate > your email > address, otherwise your comment doesn't get received) > > There are a lot of other reasons to be opposed to the proposed > contracts, > such as the presumptive renewal, the ability to sell traffic data, > the > removal of price caps, etc. I will be writing a longer document > soon, but > wanted to give everyone a heads-up, so that you can take > appropriate action > on your own now, and corroborate things independently with Vint > Cerf, John > Jeffrey or other ICANN people. > > These are fundamentally flawed contracts, and should not be > approved by > ICANN. The precedents these contracts would create are ominous, > even worse > then the .com proposed settlement agreement (that the DoC has yet > to > approve). Why is ICANN even renegotiating these registry > agreements, when > the existing terms don't expire for several years in some cases, > and the > GNSO PDP process for registry services is ongoing?? > > Sincerely, > > George > 416-588-0269 > > > >