ICANN Is At It Again - React Fast - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**Duke** · 11-17-2006, 05:52 PM

ICANN has put the controversial new contract agreements for the .org, .info and .biz registries back on their agenda for a board meeting next Wednesday (Nov. 22). They seem bent on rushing these things through before anyone has time to react.

You will recall that there was almost unanimous disapproval of these agreements in the first open public commentary period. So ICANN made some minor revisions and opened a very brief new commentary period so they can say few people objected to the "new revised" agreements. I think we need to log our objections to the revised agreements before the meeting which apparently can only be done by sending an email to revised-biz-info-org-agreements@icann.org
(I understand the "official" comment period ended Nov. 14, but they are still accepting and posting comments).

They should send you a reply with a link to follow to authenticate your email and it can take several hours for your comments to appear on the ICANN public comment page here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/revised...rg-agreements/

If you need to brush up on the revised contracts and the dangers they pose, read this very detailed protest letter that Phil Corwin, legal counsel for the Internet Commerce Association, sent to the ICANN board on Tuesday: http://forum.icann.org/lists/revised.../msg00015.html

In addition, ICA President Bob Martin sent a letter today to U.S. Senator Ted Stevens who has already voiced dissatisfaction about ICANN's lack of transparency:

http://www.dnjournal.com/docs/ica-se...nov17-2006.htm

It looks like ICANN plans to keep hammering away at this, hoping to catch domain owners asleep, until they can get away with giving the registries unlimited pricing power over everyone's domains.

**Acro** · 11-17-2006, 06:17 PM

BUMP!

And let's act now!

E-mail sent.

ICANN will face a strong, organized, worldwide uproar if they approve
the revision of ORG/BIZ/INFO agreements that would allow the respective
Registries to sneak tiered pricing.

We will not let you take down the foundation of e-commerce!

**carlton** · 11-17-2006, 08:07 PM

Duke - Thanks for the heads up. I had lost track a bit in the past few weeks. Was able to review the latest developments and read ICANN forum letters. Submitted my thoughts on the matter.

**Acro** · 11-17-2006, 08:47 PM

This needs to be a sticky and be mass e-mailed to all DNF members!

**simon** · 11-17-2006, 08:52 PM

thanks for the infor Duke

Mr. Deleted · 11-17-2006, 10:04 PM

Email sent.

**Acro** · 11-17-2006, 10:07 PM

Let's keep this thread live!

**BidNo** · 11-17-2006, 11:01 PM

If you haven't sent email, do it now. This is very IMPORTANT! Act NOW!!!!!!!

Mr. Deleted · 11-17-2006, 11:02 PM

sent to some people on MSN, everyone needs to know about this to get their voice heard

**BidNo** · 11-17-2006, 11:14 PM

*bump*
I'm headed over to NP to make sure word is out over there. I'm sure GeorgeK is on on it over at DS. Word is out at Traffic. Who else?

Everybody needs to sent an email to ICANN! This is important people.

Mods can we make this sticky?

**Acro** · 11-18-2006, 12:13 AM

**trader** · 11-18-2006, 12:23 AM

Even with a 10% cap it likely means renewals will at least double over 10-yrs, which you can count on and perhaps a lot more if they allow contract revisions.

I have grown very weary of the battle.

**Domainator** · 11-18-2006, 12:25 AM

email sent!

**BidNo** · 11-18-2006, 12:31 AM

*bump*

Here's the email I sent:

Quote:

Subj: We said NO!!!! Is it time for the FBI?

Here are a few of the objections to the prior contract:

1) Insufficient time for public comment
2) Lack of competitive bidding for renewal (i.e. awarding a permanent monopoly)
3) Uncapped price increases in the face of declining costs of required technology
4) Permitting differential pricing on domain renewals
5) Registry ownership and the unfettered resale of public and private data

You have responded with:

1) Even less time for public comment
2) Lack of competitive bidding for renewal (i.e. a permanent monopoly)
3) 10% annual price increases in the face of declining costs
4) Permitting differential pricing
5) Registry ownership and the unfettered resale of public and private data

I publicly question ICANNs motives in rushing to push through such a fundamentally flawed contract to award monopolies. There is either undeniable incompetence or corruption at hand. These contracts are clearly a sweetheart deal for a few registries at the expense of thousands of businesses and individuals who’s views ICANN is also supposed to consider, and who have strongly voiced their opposition to these terms.

**DomainEngineer** · 11-18-2006, 12:34 AM

I posted yesterday.

Please send email fast.

Thanks.

**BidNo** · 11-18-2006, 01:22 AM

I read your input Rick, well done.

Time is short. Anyone who has not made their voice heard needs to do so. Email simply saying "I am opposed" can make a difference.

**carlton** · 11-18-2006, 08:09 AM

There are some excellent points being brought out in everyone's ICANN letters. If interested, I thought R. Goodwin's post was quite on the money too.

**H2FC** · 11-18-2006, 09:16 AM

email sent....thanks for the alert

**bwhhisc** · 11-18-2006, 10:53 AM

I also posted an email letter to them. Thanks for the heads-up.