Opposed to Proposed .ORG 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 .ORG 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 .ORG, there is no free market. Competition normally helps to regulate pricing, but here there is no competition. If you want a .ORG domain, or want to keep one you already have, you have no other choice but the Public Interest Registry (PIR). There is no competition in the .ORG name space, except by the choice of registrar. But, when the .ORG 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. Non-profit and other organizations need to be able to be able to anticipate, as accurately as possible, and budget for their expenses in a quarter or year. Price increases based on inflation, cost of living, etc. can, to some degree, be predicted and planned for. However, if domain name renewals jump from $10 per year to $10,000 per year, that's an extraordinary price increase that can not easily be predicted. Even the price of oil does not fluctuate to those degrees. What incentive is there for a non-profit or other organization to build a web site, to develop useful and compelling content and so on, when they can lose their domain name when the registry decides that their domain name is more valuable than another? 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. Additionally, let's say that a non-profit organization is formed to educate people about the enjoyment of keeping pet zendoggles (made up word) and registers ZENDOGGLES.ORG. Now, let's say that the staff of the registry operator believes that zendoggles should roam free in the wild and doesn't support the purpose of the NPO. Domain name renewal time comes up, and the NPO gets a bill for $1,000,000/year to renew their domain. That type of thing could happen for any controversial subject, be it gun control, abortion, immigration, etc. What's to stop the .ORG registry from charging a national non-profit organization more for their domain name than a smaller one? Instead of helping people (or whatever the NPO's purpose may be) with the donations they receive, a large chunk of it could be lining the pockets of the registry operator simply because they felt the larger organization could afford more. Will non-profit organizations be forced to send solicitation letters out, begging for donations to help them pay for their domain name? 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 group of people from artificially driving up web site traffic on a site whose political (or religious or other) beliefs are in opposition to their own in order to raise their renewal rates? If they can't win the battle of public opinion, they can at least make it so the organization cannot afford their domain name renewal fees. 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 invite discrimination based on political, or other, content. These provisions fail to achieve "broad representation of global Internet communities." Small non-profit or other organizations in poorer countries or in countries with devalued currency will also no longer afford to renew their "premium" domain names. The proposed .ORG registry agreement as currently written should not be approved. Regards, Dan C. Rinnert |