ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

STRONGLY OPPOSED to Proposed .BIZ, .INFO AND .ORG TLD Registry Agreements

  • To: <biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>, <info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>, <org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSED to Proposed .BIZ, .INFO AND .ORG TLD Registry Agreements
  • From: Jay Aaron <jay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:35:38 -0700

To Those it Concerns:

As a concerned citizen who values equal access to the Internet:

I STRONGLY OPPOSE many of the proposed changes to the Proposed .BIZ, .INFO
AND .ORG TLD Registry Agreements.

Please do NOT approve these changes, and re-open or extend the public
comment process and time period. Any final document should, at minimum, NOT
allow for excessive or alterable registration fees for TLDs, or for allowing
traffic monitoring that could be used to arbitrarily determine the fee that
a registrar charges for domain registration.


While I highly value that the Internet is a place of commerce that benefits
both sellers and consumers, I most appreciate that it is a binding force for
everyone, everywhere, who has a computer and access to the Web.

Isn't it enough that we have created such a distinction between the "haves"
and the "have-nots" in the "real world"? Must you, at ICANN, be the people
who impose these inequities onto the basic infrastructure of the Internet,

The proposed .org, .biz, and .info changes must NOT be implemented, for - at
least - the following reasons:

1. Equal access. Enough said. Everyone, everywhere, should have the same
rights and ability - financial and otherwise, to acquire and use TLDS for
commercial, non-profit, and other uses, and should not be penalized or
restricted on the basis of their financial condition. While I understand
that there are reasons (including the cost of administration) to charge for
domain registration, I'd prefer if just about everything related to having
access to the Internet was free of charge. But since it seems we cannot go
in that direction, I strongly oppose using the TLD registration process as a
means by which a few people can use pricing as a means of keeping others of
lesser financial means from using the Internet for the purpose of having a
TLD Web site.

2. It is apparent from the buzz on the Internet, in the media, and as
reflected in the comment posting dates that the "public" review period was
kept short and in the dark. Whether or not what I'm about to write is true,
it APPEARS that the people who are proposing the changes did not wish for
the rest of us to have adequate time to respond unfavorably, or to respond
at all.

3. TLD pricing should remain equitable for everyone wishing to purchase one.
The equal playing field that now exists allow people anywhere in the world
affordable access to any unregistered TLD. We in the U.S. have tried to
impose our "might" upon all the rest of the world, by force, and by the
force of the almighty dollar. What reason can there be from keeping people
in the developing world, with equal or greater creativity and drive to be
successful, from either starting or continuing to operate their business on
the Internet, or from being able to use the Internet to share information or
support their worthy cause - simply because some arbitrary person decides
that the TLD they want or are using is worth more than another, or more now
than it was before?

4. TLD pricing should remain consistent, because it is an unfair business
practice to allow a registrar to arbitrarily change the value of the TLD
when the registrar had (or has) absolutely nothing to do with the change in
value of the domain or its content.

Let's turn this around! If a TLD owner increases the value of domain through
developing its valuable content to others, or through increasing the
commerce that occurs, l propose that the domain registrar be assessed an
increasing payment to the domain owner, because the increased value of the
domain is an indication of what can happen to a business or organization
when they use that registrar, and therefore is an advertising/marketing
asset to the registrar, and should therefore also be an
advertising/marketing cost to the registrar.

OK, I'm not really proposing that registrars pay TLD domain owners who use
thier registry service, but there is no reason why a registrar should
benefit by being able to charge  more for a domain that they have had
absolutely no participation in enhancing the value of that domain or its

5. See GoDaddy's comments at:


When one of the largest, most well-known and most well-respected registrars
writes that these agreements are neither timely (based on the short review
period and the fact that exiting Board members are attempting to push this
through immediately prior to the change of guard), nor in the best interests
of registrars or those who register TLDs and develop Web sites at them, it's
a good idea to put this proposal to bed and either significantly change it,
or re-create it from scratch.

6. If I understand correctly, the proposed agreement allows for the
collection of traffic data that might be useful in other ways, but can also
be perceived to have as a major - or even primary - reason for inclusion
that registrars will be able to use this data to determine how when to raise
pricing on any particular domain, and by how much.

This is, simply, unacceptable. If a business or organization is successful
at driving traffic to their site, why should they be penalized by having to
pay higher registration fees for their good work? This is not a legitimate
tax - their success will have already resulted in the payment of any
additional local, state and federal taxes. This is just a usurous practice
by an unscrupulous landlord attempting to extort money from a tenant, simply
because the tenant has more money to give.

And what would keep someone or a business from driving traffic to a
competitors site, simply to drive up the cost of the TLD registration and
negatively impact their competitor's business, simply because one business
knows how to drive traffic to another Web site? This would be an unfair
business practice, not only allowed by, but actually promoted by this

7. Although anyone can register a .org TLD, there is still a perception -
reflected to a great degree in reality - that .org domains are associated
with legitimate non-profit organizations. These organizations should be
being encouraged to use the Internet; not discouraged from it. If they can
either not afford the .org TLD associated with their cause, of if owning it
becomes something for which they are penalized financially simply because
they are being successful at what they've set out to do, then this world is
becoming poorer in spirit all the time.

8. Implementing these changes related to these TLD's is not a good precedent
to set. The possibility of this spilling over into .com domains or any
others is scary, at best. Don't implement them with .org, .biz and .info
TLDs to begin with, and do NOT set a precedent that could later spill over
into other TLDs.

9. As has been stated in many other comments, implementing these proposed
changes would, in one sense, only be shooting yourself (or the registrars)
in the foot - if not the heart. What individual, organization, or business
would register a TLD knowing that they cannot know or budget for what it
will cost them to re-register it, and that the price could increase not just
by several percent, but by thousands of percent? It just wouldn't make

There are things in this world for which we cannot account, and a hurricane
can change our lives in a moment. But the Internet is not a hurricane, and
we CAN exert reasonable controls over it. There is plenty to be made by
everyone - registrars included - and it's not necessary to introduce
variable pricing, traffic tracking, or other of the unwarranted provisions
in this proposal to the benefit of a few and the detriment of the many.

IN SUMMARY, this is neither the time to implement these proposed changes,
nor are these changes worthy of implementation. Put the kiabosh on this
proposal, eliminating or terminating it immediately. Then allow the outgoing
Board Members to finish their terms, open (or re-open) these considerations
after their replacements have been installed, and seek public input BEFORE
creating any new proposals, as well as in response to any new proposal after
it is drafted.

Keep the Internet as open as possible, and as affordable to as many as
possible. REJECT this proposal.

Jay Aaron

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy