Restore confidence in ICANN globally, ""REJECT"" these inequitable ORG/BIZ/INFO agreements

[<franks@xxxxxxxx>]

Overheard at the registry HQ:  " Lets ask for something 'rolickingly insane' 
and when people complain, we'll water it down to 'plain old crazy' "

It is SHAMEFUL that ICANN staff and the ICANN board continue to allow unworthy 
policy initiatives such as these to rise to the top when so many real-issues 
require attention. The wholesale oposition to these agreements doesn't even 
come from the broader spectrum of name registrants and Internet users -- most 
of whom fail to even be aware that such a one-sided process is being played 
out. There is not a single .ORG/.BIZ/.INFO name registrant who would not 
vigorously oppose such lopsided and unfair 'deals' contemplated here if they 
knew what was going on or how to participate in the process.

These ageements literally "give the shaft" to every registered nameholder 
within these extensions and to the volunteer constituents trying to help shape 
policy in a balanced and open handed way.  Regardless of intention, these 
appear to be glaringly inequitable self-serving "paid" deals, structured purely 
to enrich the parties to the transaction at the expense of the registrants they 
are meant to serve.  If agreements such as these continue to pass unimpeded we 
will wake to see the day when divided interests finally spurn the creation of 
an alternete root and the Internet is weakened for all users.

These agreements are EXACTLY the WRONG thing,  at the wrong time.


George Kirikos' comment speaks volumes so I will repeat it:

"This is another attempt to sneak unwanted things through in a hurried fashion 
before the ICANN Meetings in Sao Paulo, where new Board members would be taking 
the place of some existing ones and where the public would have the benefit of 
the PDP'06 report."

 

"These new proposals put in 10% annual price increases, in a time when 
technological costs are FALLING, and continue the anti-competitive presumptive 
renewal,  Furthermore, the contracts leave a  huge loophole in them once more 
to renegotiate fees based on the economic expert's report."

 

"The registries want to now lock in at least 10% annual fee increases! If that 
expert later says that a tender process should be in place, to rebid operation 
of the registry to have lower prices that benefit consumers, it's too late, as 
the contracts contain presumptive renewal. If on the other hand a biased 
"expert" suggest that price caps should be removed or that differential pricing 
should be allowed, the registries would be willing to go forth with that. Once 
again, a "heads we win, tails you lose" contract in favour of the incumbent 
registry operators."




"These proposals should be denied, and instead the Board should wait until 
after Sao Paulo, as per the GNSO council vote."



Sincerely, Frank Schilling.