Scarry stuff. I hope we can trust OpenSRS to fight against this on our behalf or organize something we can all be a part of.
At 09:13 AM 10/24/2008, you wrote: >Hi folks, > >According to the draft new gTLD contracts for Section 7.3: > >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-draft-summary-changes-24oct08-en.pdf >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-comments-en.htm > >"Price controls have been removed for 2008 in favor of the transparent >pricing model outlined above." > >Section 3.2.b) of the .com registry agreement states: > >http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06.htm > >"ICANN shall not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices >arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and shall not single out >Registry Operator for disparate treatment unless justified by >substantial and reasonable cause." > >In my opinion, VeriSign (and other existing gTLD operators) are almost >being invited to ask for their contracts to be amended to get the "same >treatment" as new gTLDs in regards to the elimination of pricing caps. >This once again could re-open the issue of tiered pricing that most >have fought very hard against in order to protect registrants: > >http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/ > >I believe the language of these proposed new gTLD contracts needs to >have hard caps in place to protect existing gTLD registrants. New gTLDs >are NOT effective substitutes for existing gTLDs, and thus >"competition" isn't going to keep VeriSign's pricing power in check. >Even with a 10-year transition period, it would shock the conscience if >VeriSIgn was permitted to arbitrarily and unilaterally raise the >renewal price of .coms to millions or billions of dollars per year (say >$1 billion/yr for Google.com, $10 million/yr for Hotels.com, $50 >million/yr for Cars.com, $30 million/yr for Games.com, or whatever the >market would bear), effectively re-auctioning the entire list of >premium domain names to the highest bidder, removing the existing >registrant and replacing things with .tv style pricing. > >Alternatively, all existing gTLD operators need to agree to language, >before any new gTLDs are approved, that make explicit that the hard >caps cannot be removed irregardless of whatever happens in other gTLDs. > >I also find it disturbing that the ICANN staff who prepared the draft >agreements stated that for the existing 2005-2007 gTLD agreements for >Section 7.3: > >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-draft-summary-changes-24oct08-en.pdf > >"(ICANNs unsponsored gTLD registry agreements have not included price >controls.)" > >This is demonstrably FALSE, see Section 7.3 of the current .biz, .info >and .org agreements: > >http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm >http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm >http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/org/registry-agmt-16jul08.htm > >each of which have in place a "Maximum Service Fee" due to the hard >work of many in the ICANN community. > >It's very alarming that such misleading information is being put out by >ICANN in regards to the description of existing consumer protections >that exist for registrants. ICANN's registries have managed to create a >"presumptive renewal" for themselves at the expense of the ICANN >community who would fare better if registry operations were tendered to >the lowest bidder. At a minimum, existing domain registrants should >expect presumptive renewal of their own domains at a constant price, or >one that reflects a price index of global technology costs (which is >generally far below that of the Consumer Price Index). > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >http://www.kirikos.com/ > >_______________________________________________ >domains-gen mailing list >[email protected] >http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
_______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
