ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Vint Cerf/ICANN confirm my interpretation of .biz/info/org proposed contracts -- tiered/differential domain pricing would not be forbidden

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Vint Cerf/ICANN confirm my interpretation of .biz/info/org proposed contracts -- tiered/differential domain pricing would not be forbidden
  • From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:49:37 -0700 (PDT)

Hi folks,

A quick followup on my prior post. If folks don't believe registries
will exploit loopholes in contracts, simply take a look at what is
happening in the Domain Tasting / Domain Kiting issue.


Loopholes are made to be exploited. For ICANN to knowingly leave in a
loophole that registries can later exploit would be reckless.

Security and stability of the internet demands that there be stability
for domain registrants too, with certainty about their future. ICANN is
not doing their job if they are not protecting registrants from
monopolistic or oligopolistic registries, who on a whim can expropriate
their domains, albeit with the "protection" of a 10 year notice period.
That's not good enough.

ICANN went even further than the .com proposed settlement with
VeriSign, and gives these registries removal of price caps "following
extensive consideration and discussion" (I don't recall any such public
discussion or consultation with the ICANN community and stakeholders).
However, take note of ICANN's statements in the CFIT litigation
regarding pricing caps on May 26th:


"in a single supplier market, price caps are, if anything,
procompetitive (Mot. at 13-14);" [page 1 of the document, line 13, page
 6 of all 15]

"Nowhere does CFIT address the fact that, at this point in time, all
that ICANN and VeriSign have done is propose future price **limits**
for .COM domain names, which cannot be implemented until the DOC
approves the .COM Extension.  (Mot. at 20-22.)  And, as ICANN explained
in its opening brief, price caps in a single supplier market are
considered pro-competitive.  (Mot. at 13-14.)"  [page 8 of the
document, line 14, page  13 of all 15]

So, you have ICANN lawyers telling the court that price caps are
pro-competitive in these single supplier markets (i.e. where registries
are the single suppliers for each TLD). Indeed, it is part of ICANN's
mission to promote competition.

Yet, we have ICANN removing all price caps entirely on .biz, .info and
.org with these proposed new contracts. Something is amiss. Wouldn't
that contradict everything their lawyers said to the court??


George Kirikos

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy