Domain name madness

Domain name madness...

Some people worry about the power of Google.

There's only one force on the Internet that I worry about and that's...

The institutions that control the domain name system.

Why? Because they have the power to change the domain name rules radically.

Who cares? You might care if when you domain name comes up for renewal, the charge is $1,000, or $10,000 - or whatever the market can bare.

That's impossible, right? Not only is in not impossible, but ICANN - the domain regulation entity that controls .org, .info and .biz - has a proposal on the table right now that make such prices possible.

If they get away with it, you can be sure that Verisign which controls the .com domains will not be far behind.

I only just learned about this from my colleagues Rick Schwartz and Howard Neu late last night and the public comment period ends today.

Here's what we need to do:

1. Go to the ICANN web page that discusses this:

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm

2. Compose a letter that opposes the variable pricing of domain names and send it to each of the three e-mail addresses listed on the web page - for .org, .info,  and .biz

3. If you need ideas of things to write, just read the comments that others have posted which are on the page.

4. If you are a business owner who uses the web, let them know that you are and that you oppose this radical change to the domain system. 

5. The key phrase is variable pricing, so at a minimum put something like "No to variable pricing" or "Opposed to variable pricing" in the subject line.

In the body add something like "As a small business owner who has made a considerable investment in developing the domain names I own, I am firmly opposed to the variable pricing of domain names by the .org registry." And then send a separate note for .biz and .info.

The posting information is all here:

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Some of us are working to try to extend the public comment period, but don't count on getting a second shot at going on the record.

Variable pricing of domains by the registries is a terrible idea for web site owners.

ICANN and Verisign enjoy government granted monopolies. The current system - which works fine and serves the Internet community - should be kept as it is.

Comments

[Christine Taylor]

I'm sorry Ken, I don't understand -- I read the proposal but don't see where your $1000-$10,0000 figure is coming from.

[Peter - www.SoftwareCasa.com]

Thanks Ken,

For alerting us about this insanity.

I am emailing ICANN about this stupidity right now.

Cheers,
Peter

[Steve Hards]

Hi Christine, the ICANN forum postings draw out the issue. As one of them says:

"[the proposals allow] the registry to charge whatever they can get away with, as they are unhindered by contractual obligations to continue to provide their service with only a small incremental price increase"

Steve

[George Lutz]

Ken,

I wrote a letter and tried to send it to ICANN but the link for posting a reply is not functioning. What you you propose.

[Dan Raine]

Wow, that slipped in quietly. They are certainly getting an email on this right now.

Dan

[Keith Holloway]

Hi Ken,

Is this is in fact the case then I am extremely opposed, however, like Christine, I don't see where you are getting this information. The link you have posted only talks about proposed changes to .biz, .net, and .org - nothing about varible pricing.

And to Steve: a) Where's the forum link? b) Allowing registries to charge whatever they wish and adopting variable pricing based on value of domains as Ken suggests are two completely different things.

Keith

[Troy Whitmore]

Wow.. although this sounds so unreal, stranger has happened. Glad to get yet another heads-up Ken.

Troy.

[text sent to ICANN]

As a small and too often struggling business owner I am
firmly opposed to the proposed VARIABLE PRICING of Domain Names.

The Internet is a wonderful tool for education, entertainment and commerce.

We must keep it as free and unfettered with bureaucratic influence and sticker-pricing as is possible.

[Jim Corbett]

Well Ken it seems obvious you 'Emergency Email' had a strong effect as ICANN has appears to have stopped updating the proposals threads.
Here is what I had to say about the matter:
Price caps must remain in place, after all it’s only ‘pro-competitive’.
Do Vinton G. Cerf and the rest of the ICANN board really want to forever attach their names to the phrase ‘The Death of Internet Entrepreneurship’?
I have devoted a great deal of my time and resources to internet entrepreneurship. The current proposals loop hole carries with it the potential to utterly devastate the lives of not only myself and my family, but my friends, and many acquaintances and their families as well.
Here’s a great headline for you ‘ICANN Chief Internet Evangelist Vinton G. Cerf Sheppard’s Tens of Thousands to Unemployment”
Here’s another headline for you ‘New Court Ruling Establishes President Allowing Top Domain Name Owners Class Action Lawsuit Against ICANN and Its Chair Vinton G Cerf”.

[Lee Little]

JUST IN CASE YOU STILL DON'T BELIEVE KEN'S CONCERN THAT VERISIGN WILL FOLLOW SUIT WITH INCREASING THE COST OF DOT COMS, HERE'S THEIR 2 CENTS:

"Statement in Support of Renewal gTLD Agreement for .biz
To:
Subject: Statement in Support of Renewal gTLD Agreement for .biz
From: "Gomes, Chuck"
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:54:18 -0400

Ensuring the continued security and stability of its infrastructure is
critical to the continued growth of the Internet. That is why VeriSign
supports the proposed new registry agreement for .biz. The agreement
closely mirrors the model registry agreements that ICANN has already
used or proposed for .com, .info, .mobi, .net, and .org.

These agreements strike the important balance between protecting
Internet users and providing registry operators with the incentives and
flexibility to continue to invest in the Internet infrastructure. They
also create a level playing field for all the registries.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services
cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx

VeriSign(r)--------------Where it all comes together.(tm)

[Ken McCarthy]

ALERT:

Even after submitting your comment, you will be required to verify that you sent it in.

Not only that, but ICANN recommends you verify it two ways and even then won't guarantee that your comment is included.

So if you submit a comment, check your inbox and your spam filters and verify (twice) that you are who you say you are...

If you weren't clear that we're dealing with a government-protected monopolistic bureaucracy that answers to no one, this is a heads up.

More later...

[Craig Eubanks]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the heads up. I fired of my letters just a minute ago, and I'm sending your email to others who will want to know.

Cheers,

Craig

[Ken McCarthy]

More...

Guys,

I got notice of this at 11 PM last night (Sunday) and my e-mail went out first thing Monday morning so I did not have a chance to nail down every last detail.

Here's what I know for sure:

1. ICANN is proposing "variable pricing" of domain names which - as far as anyone can tell - means different prices for different names.

2. The new prices will be based on the "market value" of the domain.

3. The new pricing structure would apply to ALL names including active ones that already have businesses built on them - like yours.

4. Strictly speaking you do not own your domain name.

It's a bit like home ownership in America. You may "own" your house free and clear, but if you don't pay local real estate taxes, the county can and will take the property from you.

It's the same thing with domain names. If you don't pay the renewal fee - whatever it is set at - the name will be taken away from you, and all it takes is a keystroke.

5. What exactly ICANN is proposing is hard to tell because the language they are using is vague enough to drive a truck through.

Basically, the thing is written in such a way that ANYTHING - including public auctions of existing domains as they come up for renewal - is possible.

6. Basic Rule of Life:

You NEVER sit back and let an all-powerful monopoly use vague language to make sweeping changes to a system your livelihood depends on so whether or not I completely understand what ICANN it up to, my answer is "NO!"

Does that make me reactionary? You bet it does and I'm proud of it in this case.

7. The people who alerted me to this are Rick Schwartz and Howard Neu who are a veteran domain name industry experts.

Howard is an attorney who specializes in domain name law and Rick is a legendary domain name investor who has many millions of dollars worth of reasons to track this issue very closely.

8. Ron Jackson who publishes the Domain Name Journal and is the leading journalist in the domain name field posted this short article on the subject:

http://www.dnjournal.com/lowdown.htm

I'd love to answer questions on this, but there's not much more I can add other than this:

Take action today (8/28) to protect your interests.

- Ken

[James Mackinlay]

Seems to me this would be a damm good way for them to put themselves out of business?

I will start giving away subdomains like crazy and as far as Google goes Im not brain washed like everyone else.

The greed on the internet has hit unreal new heights I think the internet as we know it will be gone within the next 5 or so years anyway at the rate its going.

People just dont have the money to support the price increase they are asking for the reality is most people are having a hard time getting by.

For thewm to do that is like putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger do these people know what trickle down effect it would have on the industry it would destroy the internet.

James Mackinlay

[Ruth]

Thanks Ken,

I posted this to my blog alos,
Ruth

[Jay Aaron]

Ken,

Thanks for the heads-up on this. I focus on my area of expertise, so I count on people like you to bring issues such as this that affect my ability to serve, to my - and others' - attention.

Something I haven't read in this discussion or in any of the comments at ICANN so far is how this issue within ICANN so clearly points out the larger issue of accessibility, ownership, commoditizing and other considerations related to the larger question of who owns and who controls the Internet.

I am a strong proponent of the use of the Internet for commerce, as it provides immense value to sellers and buyers alike.

AND I also believe that the Internet should remain as open and accessible to everyone as possible.

Will we, as a larger - human - community, allow a small number of "priveleged" individuals the ability to determine the future of the Internet for all of those who are less priveleged?

Will this become yet another battleground for the victory of the "haves" over the have-nots?

Will small business lose to big businesses?

Will people be penalized instead of rewarded for being successful - commerially or in their non-profit or other non-commercial endeavours on the Web?

Will non-profits whose ability to do good in the world be penalized or even put out of business because as a result of their increasing success in getting their organization's message out the cost of paying for their annual .org TLD registration rises to exceed their total operational budget?

I've sent in my comments to ICANN about the commercial aspects of all of this. And I made sure to lead with the importance of keeping the Internet accessible to all people - wherever they live, and however limited their financial resources.

Let's not allow a few exiting ICANN Board Members to keep non-profit organizations in developing countries from having a TLD presence on the Web!

Not to mention those of us who count on the Internet for our small business success.

Jay Aaron
Founder http://www.GoToSourceSecrets.com
and http://www.TeleconferenceTactics.com

P.S. An earlier reply to your blog entry pointed out VeriSign's positive response to ICANN's proposal.

Readers may also wish to view GoDaddy's response, in which one of the Internet's largest registrar services votes NO! on the proposed changes, and makes it very clear why.

See GoDaddy's comments at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-tld-agreement/msg00058.html

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.

[Art Crowley]

Ken,

Thanks for the heads up on this and for getting the word out.

[Jim Corbett]

Here is another good resource
http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/

[Bryce]

Ken,

I went to the ICANN site and did send and confirm a protest to the proposed lifting of price controls on what amounts to a monopoly for the domain registries. However, nowhere in the ICANN disclosure did the term "variable pricing" occur nor was there any hint at the kind of price increases you mentioned in your email. The term "variable pricing" and the potential for price gouging can certainly be drawn from the ICANN wording, but in my experience when working with issues like this it is best to first state your objections directly using the wording of the proposal and then expand on that wording to explain your reasoning I.e. "removing price controls will allow for variable pricing with no limits because a monopoly situation exists."

Bryce

[Ryan Orrock]

Thanks Ken. I saw something about this, but you showed me just how urgent this was.

Thank you for being someone who stands up for things that are right, and not just someone who sends endless sales letters like your colleages.

The variable-pricing scheme and the Network Neutrality issue are very key decisions for our children and their children. In fact, it may be as important for us to stand up now, while it is easy, for these issues as it was for our founding fathers' freedom to stand up to the injustices that they were suffering over 200 years ago.

[Dan Buglio]

Here is what I think.

Let's compare the variable pricing to registration fees for automobiles. The analogy I will give is that the proposed variable pricing would be like saying the registration fee for an Acura will cost more than registering a Chevy Cobolt simply because the Acura has a higher market value. Crazy...there is no more management or paperwork required to "register" Google.com than www.my-air-purifier.com. A registration is a registration. Period.

A domain name has no value until the owner drives traffic to it and builds it as a brand. Why should those successful in doing a good job of building value be penalized???

My two cents. Posted my emails today.

Dan Buglio

[Ken McCarthy]

Bryce,

I agree with your point. That's probably a much better way to phrase it.

Again, I had a very narrow time frame to digest the news and respond to it.

If anyone wants to make suggestions on improving the wording of the letters to ICANN, have at it. It's very helpful.

Just do it before 5 PM Pacific today (Monday, Augyst 28th) because that's the end of the public comment period.

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Ken McCarthy]

Here's an article from a UK web site published Saturday that lays it all out.

They seem to agree with the position that the proposed ICANN changes have the potentially to undo the entire domain name system as we know it.

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=JH264060B&news_headline=tiered_pricing_coming_to_top-level_domain_names

[CC]

I think this is a good idea. It should keep domain prospectors from stealing all the good domains.

[Misapoes]

1000 $ is exagurating.

And i would like higher prices,it would do good for hosting companies that also register domain names.

Not anything more then 80 $ or something tho.

If it really comes to 1000$, or even above 100$, people would become crazy and it would be a huge dissadvantage for the ICANN etc.

[Shane]

In my opinion, the worst part about it is the fact that domain names are essentially unlimited. When a particular domain extension (.com, .org, etc) "runs out," simply create a few new extensions. If we had a true limited supply, then the variable pricing would be very reasonable. However, when the supply is endless, the costs should NEVER change more than inflation itself.