Opposed to Proposed .INFO Registry Agreement
Sunday, August 27, 2006 To the ICANN Board of Directors: As a domain name registrant and web site developer, I am opposed to the new .INFO Registry Agreement as currently proposed. First, I am opposed to the elimination of pricing controls. I support free markets, but when a single registry has control over a specific gTLD, such as .INFO, there is no free market. Competition normally helps to regulate pricing, but here there is no competition. If you want a .INFO domain, or want to keep one you already have, you have no other choice but Afilias.info. There is no competition in the .INFO name space, except by the choice of registrar. But, when the .INFO registry operator determines the base price of a domain on variable-by-domain pricing, your choices may be limited to a registrar charging $5,008.95 or a registrar charging $5,034.99, which is really little choice at all. The intended purpose of the .INFO is for informational web sites. It could be a web site developed by an individual, a business or an organization. What incentive is there for any of these entities to build a web site, to develop compelling content, to create new innovative applications and so on, when they can lose their domain name when the registry decides that their domain name is more valuable than another? Let's say that zendoggles (madeup word) are popular pets and that John Q. Public is an expert on zendoggles, and he builds, just as a hobby, an informational web site about zendoggle care, and registers ZENDOGGLE.INFO for $15/year. He spends his free time putting together the web site, adding useful content, pointing web site visitors to answers and additional information. Now, the .INFO registry comes along and decides that ZENDOGGLE.INFO is worth more than $15/year. Maybe they think some big zendoggle-related corporation might want it to build a informational--and promotional--web site. So, John Q. Public gets the bill for his domain name renewal and now it's $1,500/year instead of $15/year. Since it is a hobby site, John can't afford, or is unwilling to pay, the renewal fee. So, the general public loses a useful resource. The registry operators should not be in the business of valuating domain names! The registry operators do not promote the domain name, they do not add value to the domain name, they provide the same service for a standard domain name as they do for a "premium" domain name. Why should they be entitled to any portion of the value that the domain name registrant created either by developing useful content or by simply choosing a valuable domain name that no one else thought to register? If a registry operator wants to be in the domain name speculation business, then they should first drop out of the registry operation business. Second, I am opposed to the traffic data provision. The traffic data provision allows the registry operator to collect "traffic data regarding domain names or non-existent domain names for purposes such as, without limitation, ... promoting the sale of domain names...." This would seem to allow registry operators to calculate renewal rates based on traffic. What other use would this data have for them? If traffic data were to be used for such purposes, what would preclude a big business from artificially driving up the web site traffic on a domain name they wanted in order to inflate the renewal rates, so that John Q. Public cannot afford to renew and the Zendoggle Corporation can grab the domain name they wanted? Third, I am opposed to presumptive renewal. Renewal needs to be explicit. It is also troubling that, as mentioned in GoDaddy.com's comments, the new agreements omit provisions that the registry be able to provide a "substantial service to the Internet community" and that they are "qualified to operate the Registry TLD during the renewal term." Under the current .COM registry agreement (section 25.B (b) and (c)), the registry operator is considered in breach of the agreement if they fail to meet those qualifications. The proposed .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG agreements as currently written do not contain those provisions. This would seem to indicate that, even if the registry operator failed to meet those conditions, their agreement would still be renewed for another term. The aforementioned provisions fail to live up to ICANN's mission statement to "promoting competition" and "to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities." These provisions do not promote competition, but instead allow for big businesses to dominate the .INFO domain space, as individuals, small businesses and non-profit organizations may find they can no longer afford to renew their "premium" domain names. These provisions fail to achieve "broad representation of global Internet communities." Individuals, small businesses and non-profit organizations in poorer countries or in countries with devalued currency will also no longer afford to renew their "premium" domain names. The proposed .INFO registry agreement as currently written should not be approved. Regards, Dan C. Rinnert |