Re: [alac] Draft comments on registry contracts

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John L ha scritto:
> 3.  Once a user has selected a domain, that domain's registry is the
> monopoly supplier of renewals.  Predictable pricing from those
> monopoly suppliers is an important part of the stability of the net.
> Millions of people have bought domains on the expectation of being
> able to renew them at about the same price they have paid in the past.
> Prepaying for 10 years is not a substitute for stability, both because
> 10 years is not a long time in business and personal events, and
> because it forces users to buy renewals they wouldn't otherwise buy,
> purely do defend against registries raising the price should a domain
> become notably successful.

(typo in the second last line, "to defend")

If you like, you could make the point more explicit, e.g. "Registries 
and registrars should not be allowed to become hidden shareholders on 
the ventures that use domain names to market their products, by raising 
prices in case of success of the services that others created (and ran 
the risk for) on the domain names they sell. There is no economical 
justification for such a behaviour other than the monopoly position of 
the registry."

> 4.  Registries are, by all reports, profitable at the current capped
> price and can and do make needed investments in infrastructure.
> Indeed, the experience of the .net renewal strongly suggests that even
> at $3 there would be multiple well qualified candidates to run these
> three registries.
>
> 5.  The current system of fixed price caps has worked well for
> registries, registrars, and most importantly for users since ICANN
> began.  Removing price caps would benefit registries at the expense of
> users.  If registries want to remove price caps, they need to show a
> community benefit that outweighs the substantial costs imposed on
> users, which they have not done.
>
> 6.  Traffic data, even that which has undergone some anonymization,
> may still contain sensitive personal or competitive information.  At a
> minimum, more public consultation should be held before registries are
> permitted to sell or otherwise exploit that data.

Maybe add that "Compliance of such provisions with existing privacy laws 
in different legislations should be assessed in advance." ?

> 7. These contracts are explicitly designed for the benefit of users of
> the DNS.  Remove the "no third-party beneficiaries" language to enable
> relying registrants and users to police their own interests.
>
> 8. Periodic re-bidding serves as a stronger check on bad behavior than
> the weak arbitration and mediation provisions within the contract.
> The presumptive perpetual renewal should be dropped.

I support the comment (both with or without my additions).
--
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...