On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Swerve wrote:
> I say get Icann to Force Verisign to reduce these prices.
> If Icann won't, then figure out how to Force them to.
With the current state of affairs you're left with finding people or
organizations that have an effective voice within ICANN, convincing them,
and having them navigate the byzantine structure with ICANN to make the
case. As Elliot has indicated he feels he has a voice within ICANN
hopefully he could be talked into this.
The severity of the fee amounts to little more than extortion. VSGN knows they
have you over a barrel. I can see charging the same amount they charge for
a years registration($6), but anything beyond that gets into the realm of
price-gouging.
It would be a lot easier if us domain-registrant serfs had an *effective*,
*representative* voice within ICANN(and I'm not talking about open mike
night at an ICANN board meeting, or submitting comments to a
message-board blackhole.) Representation of registrants on the board and
elsewhere within the organization is the thing you should be demanding.
Long term representation is the only thing that matters. While hopefully
others that are represented within ICANN such as Tucows will take issue
with the amount of this fee and take ultimately effective action against
it, there is no such guarantee.
First of all, it's currently implemented which is a pretty bad sign with
regards to objections being considered.
Second it may not be enough of an issue for represented opposing
individuals/organizations to devote the resources to fighting it.
Third, some organizations outside VSGN may actually be in favor of it if
they derive revenue from it in some way.
Without representation within ICANN, or by the actions of some external
third party such as the DOC exercising their authority, we will continue
to see the steady stream of such anti-registrant actions.
The simple fact is that you cannot count on your interests or the
interests of other registrants being aligned with or represented by
"people that matter" within ICANN.
The UDRP was just the beginning.
> That said, I actually support the idea. It's another layer of back up.
> If the domain is really important or valuable to someone, then $200. or
> better yet, say $30 dollars, is a small price to pay for something that the
> customer might find valuable.
It's a great idea, implemented in an opportunistic, abusive fashion.
Undeleting a registration is no more difficult than registering one.
Despite a similar cost of service, VSGN is charging over 14 times the cost of
a normal registration, indicating a perception on their part that such
names are much more valuable to registrants than new names.
In fact, the parties involved frame probably one of the best definitions
of a "cybersquatter" imaginable: someone who makes a practice of obtaining
names that another party believes it has superior rights in, and then
attempting to profit by selling the name back to them.
The applicability of this label, based on the capabilities, intent,
and actions of those involved, and when considering the current state of
policy is so breathtaking and close to absolute as to be indistinguishable
from it, far exceeding that of virtually any other individual or organization
labelled a "cybersquatter" past, or present.
Here's why:
With regards to those acting pre-ICANN, for years, there were no clear
laws or rules regarding the actions of a small cottage industry of
people we would now label deliberate, profit-motivated "cybersquatters" as
previously defined, meaning that while people may not have liked it and/or may
have felt that these parties were *morally* wrong, the rule of first-come,
first-serve was practiced, it hadn't been established that they were
doing anything contractually or legally forbidden. As such the parties
asserting this was immoral, stealing, etc. lacked contracts, laws or any
objectively credible claim of consensus among the Internet community at
large favorable to their position.
Viewed in the context of the times, those doing this in the past could
credibly claim that they weren't doing anything wrong.
Fast forward several years, and besides the U.S. now having a law on the
books, the Internet at large has the UDRP, creating what is in reality a very
convienent self-referential "supporting proof" loop, where a subset
of those originally asserting the "immorality" of these activities were
largely responsible for the U.S. legislation as well as the UDRP, which is in
turn misrepresented as the result of an "Internet community consensus-based"
process, and pointed to as external evidence supporting wide support for their
position.
In numerous UDRP cases, "cybersquatters" merely registered names that
happened to constitute the same string as a company/product/etc. and made no
attempt whatsoever to contact and/or otherwise sell a name to a party claiming
some right in the string.
Despite no shortage of UDRP-sanctioned reverse-hijackings often involving
the application of the arbitrators own biases in lieu of existing
policy or statute that might indicate otherwise, there still is no such
thing as a "global trademark" on domain names(or anythinge else) offering
prima facie evidence of superior rights to a string across all possible
industries, encompassing all possible other usages, at least in the U.S.
Given any competent forum(which automatically excludes UDRP kangaroo
court) such as a court of law where the plantiff isn't paying the judge and
decisions are based on actual laws rather than ones the judge wishes existed,
what do you think the result would be if I was to grab a name that you had
let expire and then attempted to sell it back to you?
Who is more fittingly referred to as a "cybersquatter", someone who
simply registers an identical or similar trademarked name, or someone who
attempts to profit by selling a name back to the most previous registrant?
VSGN has little defense for such activities in 2003. It's pretty apparent
that they were pro "cybersquatting" regulations because they saw an
opportunity to take the job for themselves. They've replaced the entire subset
of all of those evil "cybersquatters" who would register expired names as soon
as the became available and sell them back at a premium. At least
those guys had competition, but I'm sure VSGN will argue that what they're
doing is ok because they are screwing you less.
Last time I checked, if phone service is disconnected for non-payment, the
phone company doesn't demand 14 times their normal billing rate to turn you
back on.
Successful extortion is the act of demanding as much as it is believed
you'll pay for something that is unique and/or otherwise valuable enough
for you to pay what they are demanding. You may get the item back
but it doesn't change the nature of the crime.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
