opposed to proposed .org contract as written currently

[Robert Lange <rcl24@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am writing as a relatively long-time owner of a .org domain name who
is deeply troubled by the wording of the proposed new .org TLD contract.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

I oppose this proposed contract because it allows for the possibility of
tiered domain name pricing which is discriminatory against incumbent
owners of domain names, particularly toward small-budget domain name
owners. Furthermore, the presumptive renewal provision of the contract
will eliminate any incentive on the part of the registry operator to not
engage in such discriminatory pricing.

BACKGROUND

I have owned my domain name for about 7 years now and I would gladly own
it until the end of time. =) I don't feel I should have to justify my
particular use of my domain name, as I registered it in good faith and
have met my obligations. Nevertheless, in the world today, where the web
is synonymous with the Internet for most tech-illiterate people, (and
sadly, a lot of tech-literate, too) I feel I should explain that I
rarely operate a web site (other than the place-holder page) from my
domain and I don't have any commercial plans to exploit this particular
domain name. That in no way implies that I am not using the domain or
somehow "squatting" on it. I do computer science research, and my
personal network is vital to my and my colleagues research. My domain
name is the gateway that links my network to my work network, and so
forth. Use of IP addresses would be too clunky and I do not want to cede
DNS control to a third party, as in the case of a third-level domain
name provider.

I brief, I registerd my .org domain name in good faith, I use it, and I
should not have to cede it to someone else just because they have
pockets full of money and I don't.

DETAILED EXPLANATION OF POSITION

This proposed contract threatens my current situation.

Specifically, this proposed contract lifts price controls on registry
services. The online consensus, which is apparently confirmed by Vint
Cerf, is that this language would allow the .org registry operator to
charge different prices for different domain names. The specific
objectionable contract line appears to be 3.1(b)(v)(A).

For an example of my concern, if a TV show, book, or other pop-culture
item attained widespread popularity and happened to share the same name
as my domain name, the .org registry operator would be able to raise my
cost of renewal such that it would be a burden for me to renew. Or even
worse, the registry operator could determine, using some computer
algorithm or market-research, that my name is "cool" and thus worthy of
a higher renewal price. In either case, even though I've done nothing
wrong, I would effectively lose my domain name.

I realize that there is some provision that gives name owners up to 6
months to make a renewal of up to 10 years at the original price.
However, this is unsatisfactory. Imagine if you had purchased your first
house, moved in and gotten comfortable, and then the government
announced that it planned to raise property taxes so high that you would
not be able to afford to live there in 10 years. This is exactly the
situation domain name owners will be in if this contract is approved.

PROPOSED FIXES

1. All registry operators must sell every name at exactly the same
price. They must also offer every name for renewal at the same renewal
price. The operator may set their flat prices, but may not discriminate
pricing between domain names.

2. The contract must be explicitly renewed, rather than presumptively
renewed. This will force registry operators to behave according to norms
of society (in this case, fair pricing) in order to maintain their
privileged status.

--Robert Lange
darkempire.org