<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
.com Registry Agreement Renewal -- Reply Period comments
- To: "com-renewal@xxxxxxxxx" <com-renewal@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: .com Registry Agreement Renewal -- Reply Period comments
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 08:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
By: George Kirikos
Title: President
Organization: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Website: http://www.leap.com/
Date: May 13, 2012
This submission addresses certain comments submitted by others during the
initial comment period.
(1) Chris Dalton, March 28, 2012
"Why are prices for domains set to go up over time when the prevailingtrend in
the technology arena is for prices to decrease over time??"
This is a very important question that Mr. Dalton asks. It begs the question
whether ICANN has done any economic studies to justify perpetual price
increases in .com that are unrelated to the actual costs of providing the
monopoly service. It's clear that ICANN has once again dropped the ball, and
should not renew the .com agreement with VeriSign under the proposed terms
until such time as fees to registrars are set via a tender process, with
VeriSign competing with others who might wish to operate the .com registry. The
contract should be awarded to the qualified applicant (qualified in the sense
that they accept the proposed service level agreement, SLA) with the lowest
fees.
(2) Jeff Matthews, April 5, 2012
"Let the .com contract go up for bidding!!
This is unfair and not free enterprise.. This is unethical."
We agree with the wise comments of Mr. Matthews, that the .com contract should
go up for bidding. ICANN should not be in the business of propping up
monopolies like VeriSign.
(3) George Kirikos, April 21, 2012
http://forum.icann.org/lists/com-renewal/msg00002.html
After reviewing all other submissions, we renew our support for our own prior
comments.
(4) Andrew Allemann, April 23, 2012
"...I see no reason for such drastic price hikes to be included in this
contract."
Truer words were never spoken.
(5) Danny Pryor, April 23, 2012
"To be succinct, the lack of competitive bidding and the wide latitude in
pricing granted Verisign could be construed as a violation of the trust between
ICANN, the business community and the people trusting ICANN to represent the
interests of fairness and accountability. "
Another brilliant comment that merits our support.
(6) 24-7 Outdoors, Inc. (Kelly Pitts), April 23, 2012
"This is a monopoly ; A disgusting monopoly."
We agree with this statement.
(ICANN) "...they have demonstrated that their self-interests win over any
public comment and will push for higher domain prices no matter what domain
owners say. Just watch. They have never once listened to public comments and
acted accordingly. "
Sadly, this statement also rings true. We challenge ICANN to listen to the
public, and open the .com contract to competitive bidding.
"Studies have shown it costs about $2 per domain to run the registry. Why do
prices need to go up without competitive bids???????????"
We believe this statement is also correct, and agree that fees to registrants
would fall dramatically under competitive bidding.
(7) Greg Ricks, April 23, 2012
"The cozy relationship between ICANN management and Verisign should
be investigated. Side note: The small time scandal causing GSA party in Vegas
was nothing compared the lavish parties put on by ICANN in exotic locals 3
times a year."
We do agree that NTIA, DOC and the DOJ should investigate the cozy relationship
between ICANN and VeriSign. In particular, has there been regulatory capture of
ICANN by the contracted parties? A "captured" entity cannot faithfully
represent the public interest.
(8) Nat Cohen, April 24, 2012
http://forum.icann.org/lists/com-renewal/msg00007.html
We fully support the insightful comments of Mr. Cohen.
(9) Kurt Irmiter, April 24, 2012
"Have you put it out to other companies asking what they would need to
charge to provide the same service?"
Mr. Irmiter asks the billion-dollar question, namely how can ICANN pretend to
negotiate with VeriSign when it doesn't appear to know the costs of providing
the service. There is no "presumptive renewal" even for sensitive military
contracts that are not closely scrutinized in regards to costs. Yet, ICANN
feels free to grant a monopoly prices increases in perpetuity. Something is
rotten in the state of California....
(10) Mark Jeftovic, April 24, 2012
"At the very least, a competitive bid on the operation of .COM would bring out
international players, or multi-national players who would
perhaps table alternative governance structures & legal procedures that were
fairer to all global stakeholders."
We agree with Mr. Jeftovic that there are global companies that would compete
with VeriSign should the contract be put out to a tender process. We also agree
that the jurisdiction of domains should be the headquarters of the registrant,
provided that it is a bona fide entity (i.e. not using fake WHOIS, for example).
(11) Michael Berkens, April 25, 2012
http://forum.icann.org/lists/com-renewal/msg00009.html
We agree wholeheartedly with the complete submission of Mr. Berkens. We
challenge ICANN to provide a single example (just 1!) of a company in the USA
that has a contract with any government body with guarantees perpetual price
increases with any showing of increased cost.
(12) Elisa Cooper, April 25, 2012
"However, we urge ICANN to require Verisign to comply with all New gTLD
Requirements including Thick Whois and support for the URS (Uniform Rapid
Suspension)."
We oppose any attempt to introduce the URS via a "backdoor" process such as the
.com registry agreement renewal. The same goes for Thick WHOIS (which we do not
oppose, but simply adding it via contract is not the proper way). These must go
through a PDP, via the GNSO consensus process. It's funny many of the same
entities that OPPOSED examination/review of the UDRP, a policy that has been in
place for more than 10 years and which has had MANY documented problems are so
quick to want to impose an UNTESTED URS policy, one that provides even less due
process to registrants than the flawed UDRP.
(13) Brian Gilbert, April 25, 2012
"ICANN should open up the .com contract to competitive bidding."
Another insightful comment that represents the opinion of the masses, that it's
time for VeriSign to have to compete in order to keep the .com contract.
(14) Marilyn Cade, April 25, 2012
"Moving to thick WHOIS for .com should be discussed with Verisign as part of
the contract discussions."
While we do not oppose Thick WHOIS, adding it into the contract directly,
instead of via the GNSO consensus process, would set a horrible precedent.
Thus, we oppose this suggestion by Ms. Cade, echoing our comments above re: Ms.
Cooper's submission.
(15) Kevin Dabney, April 25, 2012
http://forum.icann.org/lists/com-renewal/msg00016.html
Mr. Dabney makes a number of excellent points, in particular reminding us of a
Bob Parsons quote from 2006. GoDaddy and many other registrars, through their
silence, are not representing the best interests of registrants, who would
naturally be opposed to monopolistic price increases. This silence demonstrates
the "regulatory capture" of ICANN, that registrars are not acting as an
independent voice to keep registry operators in check, but instead are hoping
to become monopolistic registries themselves, and gouge the public via
unregulated prices in new gTLDs.
(16) Keith Richerdson, April 25, 2012
"It’s time to take ACTION NOW and REMOVE the renewal provisions from this
contract. If ICANN wants to act in the best interest of the global Internet
community and continue campaigning the "multi-stakeholder" model, ICANN must
remove the presumptive renewal provisions from the contract currently being
negotiated upon."
We agree 100% that the presumptive renewal clause was a mistake. If ICANN is
going to make *any* changes to the contract, that single clause must be
eliminated in all registry contracts. The DOJ should step in and declare it
illegal, in the alternative, as it is clearly an anticompetitive provision that
is costing consumers hundreds of millions of dollars in excess fees annually.
(17) Jonathan Johnson, April 24, 2012
http://forum.icann.org/lists/com-renewal/msg00018.html
Overstock is a musician that only plays one tune, with participation focused on
acquiring the O.com domain name, a name well suited for Oprah, among others.
The interests of registrants of 100 million domain names take priority over, at
most, 33 registrants (i.e. 23 unallocated single letter .com domains + 10
unallocated single digit .com domains). When there's been a successful tender
process for .com, something that would benefit the 99.9999%, then we might
waste the public's time on policymaking that would impact the 0.0001%.
(18) ALAC, April 25, 2012
http://forum.icann.org/lists/com-renewal/msg00021.html
ALAC demonstrates its continuing irrelevance by its complete statement, which
focuses only upon Thick WHOIS. Individual internet users, who ALAC purports to
represent, would be opposed to the monopolistic nature of the .com agreement,
yet ALAC says not a word. That about says it all, in terms of ALAC's
irrelevance. Unfunded entities put forth much more substantive input than the
ALAC, which is getting substantial financial support from ICANN. Clearly, ALAC
lacks any independence, as its "input" does not attempt to "make waves" -- a
truly independent watchdog would speak about the obvious flaws in the
agreement. ALAC spent much more time and resources whining about unsuitable
hotels:
http://domainincite.com/outrage-icann-complains-about-crappy-hotel/
than they did on this important multi-billion dollar dot-com contract renewal.
It's clear that ALAC places a higher priority on its travel and accommodations,
rather than the interests of the public/users.
(19) Metin Demirci, April 26, 2012
"Therefore, there should not be any reason for periodic price increases except
to increase Verisign's profit."
We agree with the comments of Mr. Demirci. VeriSign should need to justify any
fees above $2/yr per domain, a substantial DECREASE from current levels.
(20) Jeremy Hureaux, April 26, 2012
"Never heard of the "essential facilities doctrine" (antitrust law) ?"
Mr. Hureaux makes an important point, see further details
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine . In particular,
there would be ways to split the operation of the .com registry in manners such
that VeriSign did not have control of it, and that competitors would have
access (e.g. could split the "resolution of names" from the domain registration
aspect of a registry, just as is done with the root zone).
(21) INTA, April 26, 2012
http://forum.icann.org/lists/com-renewal/msg00023.html
We disagree with attempts to go around the PDP process for Thick WHOIS or URS.
Once again, it's telling that those who fought against a review of the flawed
UDRP are attempting to impose the flawed URS, without going through the
consensus process.
(22) Frank Michlick, April 26, 2012
"That being said, we're surprised to learn that ICANN proposes tore-assign the
COM operational contract to VeriSign without further
review of any potential competitive bids. This is especially astonishing when
bearing in mind that intricate details of the current version of
the contract are merely the result of a lawsuit settlement between ICANN and
VeriSign. The settlement in question was forged without public input from
community and stakeholders, and without much information given to the public at
large."
Yes, let us never forget that the company that is entrusted with a perpetual
monopoly on .com is the same company that brought in SiteFinder, and is
generally loathed by the public. Do a search for "VeriSign sucks" to see what
the public thinks of the .com registry operator.
(23) IPC, April 26, 2012
The comments of the IPC are substantially the same as those of INTA. We
reiterate our response in #21 above. I also wonder why the IPC makes no
comments on the unabated price increases of these contracts. Certainly TM
holders would howl if the USPTO raised prices for TM or patent registrations.
Yet, here they are silent in the face of a monopolistic contract. I would urge
them to voice their concerns during this "reply" period.
(24) Adam Strong, April 26, 2012
"Firstly, if my memory serves me correct the .com contract was awarded as part
of a settelement to a lawsuit. I don't believe that a contract of this
importance should have ever been used as any sort of leverage in a
settlement. The .com contract is not ICANN's "possession" to leverage this way.
The multiple stake-holders involved in ICANN were robbed when this settlement
was allowed"
Mr. Strong reminds us of an important fact, namely that ICANN misused the .com
contract back in 2006, to settle the SiteFinder lawsuit. Clearly, there was a
collateral purpose, namely that ICANN likely sought to avoid the embarrassment
of "discovery" -- if there is an entity that knows where "all the skeletons are
hidden" regarding ICANN, presumably it would be VeriSign.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|