Comments on proposals to change .org agreements

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have had domain names in .org since before there was an ICANN, since 
before there was a PIR, and before there was PIR's predecessor, Network 
Solutions and Verisign.

In the strongest of terms I object to having the terms of my domain name 
agreements changed by a body, such as ICANN, in which I and others like 
me have no meaningful voice.

I am, for all practical purposes, locked into .org.  The value and 
recognition that I have built into those names over more than a decade 
is, by these agreements, turned into a lever through which the registry 
can squeeze and squeeze and squeeze.

And what good is 6 months advance notice?  ICANN doesn't listen to 
internet users, so even if we had 20 years notice, it wouldn't make any 
difference - the proposed change would occur nevertheless.

ICANN's Chairman has said that we respond to changes by buying a 
maximum-term contract - 10 years - and thus lock in the existing terms 
for 10 years.  10 years?  When we build brands we build brands for terms 
much longer than 10 years.

All that ICANN is doing is delaying the doom, not eliminating it.  With 
a full load of sarcasm: Big deal.

And why 10 years?  Why not 50?  Why has ICANN limited our registrations 
to 10 years?  The 10 year limit was decided during ICANN's first year 
without debate, without discussion. in fact nobody knows how it came to 
be.  But no matter the details of its septic conception, what is quite 
clear is that it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation.

These agreements abandon all pretense that ICANN is anything but a body 
that promotes the interests of registries over the backs of domain name 
registrants.

ICANN seems to have been infected with a virus that drives it to make 
every registry agreement as bad as the one with Verisign for .com.

Perhaps ICANN should take a cure and stop its race to make everything 
equally bad and, instead, try to create agreements that protect internet 
users from predatory practices.

And perhaps along the way ICANN might recognize that unless it actually 
admits internet users into its decision making processes - the ALAC 
being a joke - ICANN will never have legitimacy when it pretends to be a 
protector of the interests of those users.

And why should I be tied to the rack of ICANN's ever increasing fee?  I 
don't believe that ICANN gives me $0.15/year of value, much less the 
higher amounts ICANN grants to itself in the contracts.  Perhaps theis 
fee would be fair if ICANN were to restore its broken promise that 
internet users would elect at least half of the board of directors, but 
as long as that promise remains broken ICANN does not deserve any 
per-domain fee.

Presumptive renewal - Presumptive renewal is a bad idea.  And it is 
entirely and completely unjustified for .org.  .Org existed before there 
was a PIR; PIR is, at best, a caretaker or trustee for .org.  Yet ICANN 
proposes, through presumptive renewal to make PIR the owner of .org.

On another matter altogether - Section 3.1(f) of the agreement is mis 
characterized in the summary web page.  As written, section 3.1(f) 
allows just about any kind of data mining, data manipulation, or 
differential name resolution service (in favor of or against any data 
source or name query contents) as long as personally identifiable 
information is not disclosed.

Other parts of section 3.1(f) are badly written - such as the jagged 
inclusion of the phrase "promoting the sale of domain names" in a list 
of diagnostic activities - which ICANN lobbyist included that gem in the 
rough?

And what is the meaning of that seemingly random sentence "The process 
for the introduction of new Registry Services shall not apply to such 
traffic data."?  And that sentence "Nothing contained in this section 
3.1(f) shall be deemed to constitute consent or acquiescence by ICANN to 
an introduction by Registry Operator of a service employing a universal 
wildcard function." is completely unclear - it neither prohibits nor 
denies but merely indicates ICANN's lack of consent, without regard to 
whether that consent is necessary.

My recommendation is that ICANN step back, take a deep breath, discharge 
JDRP and the attorneys who drafted this turkey, and begin anew.

                --karl--
                Karl Auerbach
                Former (and only) publicly elected director to ICANN for
                North America

PS - I write this comment in the belief that no one on ICANN's board 
will ever see it; that it will be "summarized" out of existence by 
ICANN's staff.  If a board member actually does read this I would 
appreciate an indication of the fact.