Important: Tiered Pricing Battle Again At ICANN

[GeorgeK]

(I tried posting this in the news section, but it looks like it somehow triggered moderation -- reposting here, as Exclusive Members obviously have the most to lose if this isn't opposed)

If folks will remember, 2 years ago we succcesfully fought to ensure that .tv-style tiered pricing could not be brought into .com, via the proposed .biz/info/org contracts. See the threads at:

http://www.dnforum.com/f17/icann-con...ad-173714.html

http://www.dnforum.com/f17/critical-...ad-176535.html

http://www.dnforum.com/f17/icann-aga...ad-191102.html

However, ICANN is again putting registrants at risk. As I mentioned in an article 2 weeks ago at CircleID:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/200810..._pricing_soon/

the new gTLD draft contracts remove all price restrictions, just like .biz/info/org tried to do. This means that, due to the "equal treatment" clause in .com, nothing would prevent VeriSign from insisting on the removal of its price restrictions too, and in particular that could lead to .tv-style pricing, where for example Hotels.com would cost more to renew than thisisalongandcrappydomain.com. Indeed, without price controls, nothing would stop VeriSign from charging $30 million/yr for Hotels.com, $10 million/yr for Sex.com, $1 billion/yr for Google.com, and so on, destroying people's investments in their domain names and websites.

All the same arguments apply as before, and it's disturbing that ICANN once again is re-opening this issue. The composition of the ICANN Board has changed, too, so there's no guarantee that the Board will be motivated to not rubber-stamp the proposals of their staff.

The time to act is now!

Please spread the word, and post appropriate comments to the ICANN comments site at:

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-comments-en.htm

(either in the Full Guidebook section, or Module 5, or as I did, both)

Given that many registrars are hoping to become new gTLD operators themselves, don't count on them to fight this battle on your behalf --- you have to voice your concerns, and let others know that you don't want any terms in new gTLD contracts that could impact existing gTLDs like .com, when it comes to sacred things like uniform pricing for all domains.

There's only a few weeks left to comment, and registries are counting on your apathy to slip through yet another contract term that will allow them to gain directly at your expense. Don't let this happen!

[Acro]

Thank you George. You're always vigilant on these folks. We need more lobbying on such matters, to the right people.

[GeorgeK]

Thanks Acro. If you could blog about it, that might help. I see a lot of apathy so far (perhaps folks are worried about the economy and their stock holdings). But, they should be worrying about what would happen to their domain name and website holdings should registries be able to have unrestricted pricing power --- it's scary.

I'm still not sure why my post didn't appear in the "news" section. Was linking to another site (CircleId, ICANN) not allowed?

By the way, on another board folks were unclear how to post comments. Go to:

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-comments-en.htm

Scroll down, and increase the width of your browser:

To post Full Draft comments: gtld-guide@icann.org
Existing Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/

To post Module 5 comments: gtld-transition@icann.org;
Existing Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-transition/

Module 5 has the pricing section. I posted in both of the above, though, just to be safe.

[Acro]

I think there is not enough exposure to these issues. If prodded to the right direction, people get out of apathy, which can be due to not knowing how to react to a situation. Obviously, the last thing we need in today's economy is an open pricing scheme that'd decide how much a domain's renewal fees should be based on arbitrary parameters created by a committee of pencil-pushers!

[katherine]

Thanks for the heads-up George

[GeorgeK]

If a mod can move this out of Exclusive, so the general board can be engaged on this issue, that would help.

[David G]

If a mod can move this out of Exclusive, so the general board can be engaged on this issue, that would help.

Can't believe they would not want this incredibly important stuff posted in the news section.

The mods may not see your post here to move it assuming they want to.

[jdk]

Thanks George

[Admin]

Can't believe they would not want this incredibly important stuff posted in the news section.

FYI......

This was already posted in the News section. However it needed approval and went it didn't show up right away a duplicate thread in was then posted in Exclusive.

In-any-event, yes some good info there, thanks George!

[GeorgeK]

Thanks for moving the thread. Hopefully as more folks become aware of the implications of these new gTLD discussions on their existing .com/net/org/biz/info gTLD domains, they'll make their voice heard, and not allow the registry operators to whittle away the rights of registrants. ICANN staff are obviously not looking out for our interests.

You can see it in the attitude on the ICANN blog when I brought it to their attention the first day the draft was released:

http://blog.icann.org/?p=380#comments

As to your wider question about whether the wording could in future allow for existing registries to ask for changes in their contracts, well that’s what this public comment period is for.

You are raising a theoretical future possibility based on draft documents. The answer to that is always going to be: raise it as part of the public comment process and the community can discuss it.

That reminds me of the same runaround that ICANN's lawyers were giving me when I wanted them to cost out the present value of the 7% annual price increases given to VeriSign for .com. To them it was some "theoretical possibility" that may or may not happen. We saw what happened there -- maximum price increases each year by VeriSign.

Or Vint Cerf's naive attitude 2 years ago for the .biz/info/org proposals when he said it would be "suicide" for a registry operator to try it. And then they "compromised" and gave them 10% annual price increase allowances instead! It makes one wonder what the registry operators will try to get this time as a "compromise", to once again steal away the hard gains registrants fought for 2 years ago.

VeriSign's stock price is below $20:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=VRSN

and Neustar is near its 52-week lows too:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NSR

Remember, every contract ICANN signs with registries has a clause like 8.5 in the .com contract:

http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreeme...om-01mar06.htm

No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligation by either ICANN or Registry Operator to any non-party to this Agreement, including any registrar or registered name holder.

In other words, you don't even have standing to sue ICANN or VeriSign. You don't have direct contractual relations with them. You have to rely upon ICANN to watch out for your interests. That means WE have to watch ICANN and have our voices heard so that they don't give in to the registries.

[carlton]

Thanks George for pointing out these concerns. Once again, ICANN show through their contract proposals and language that they have little regard for the rights and needs of individual domain registrants. Your comment ...

At a minimum, existing domain registrants should
expect presumptive renewal of their own domains at a constant price

... sums up the issue. Something deceitful in ICANN's resistance to adopt contract language that ensures price protection. This should be a no-brainer and a non issue.

The ICA will have a perfect opportunity to publicly address (and confront) ICANN's suspicious absence of price protection language in their proposed contracts. I'll post comments at ICANN within next day or two. And promote the cause.

[tekz999]

ICANN is full of morons who only see the dollar sign in their eyes. They are killing their system. Complaint email sent.

[rebirth]

Wow, George, great job for posting the alert. We have to warn ICAAN & VeriSign before they kill the value of dot coms.

[fab]

Wow, sort of makes me feel good, that I don't own too many premium .coms. I see no logic behind this, since they were all originally sold based upon fixed pricing. I could imagine doing this with new extension, new registrations.

High class domainers will loose a fortune from this!

[Acro]

Let's bump this up daily so that more participate.

[Carter]

Thanks for the info!

[lordbyroniv]

It would be interesting to see what is considered "Premium"

Made up words like Google would have no value unless companies were willing to put millions into development

Why should Icann consider such a domain premium ?

[David G]

Domainers are weary of these fights with Icann, especially after the last one. I know I am.

My less valuable names are beginning to look better and the good ones less valuable because 2primekeywordhightrafficdomain.com may go to say $5,000 yr to renew but 2nonprimekeywordlowtrafficdomain.com may only go to $50 by comparison (but still a high 500% renewal fee increase which makes me want to trim my large portfolio even more).

This should not effect larger companies because I am sure most of them will end up buying their one tld for their own use so should be immune from tiered pricing.

[jdk]

How do you vote to unseat ICANN members?

[fab]

How do you vote to unseat ICANN members?

Good question. I know ISOC has elections.