ICANN OKs Tiered Pricing for .org/.biz/.info

wayne writes "As reported on CircleID, Vint Cerf has confirmed that ICANN's new contracts for the .org/.biz/.info domain prices can be tiered, so that google.biz could cost $1 million per year, while sex.biz could cost $100,000/year. This is very similar to how the .tv TLD already works. The domain registrar could also could also use pricing for political purposes, claiming that pricing sex.biz high would be to 'protect the children,' while icann.org could be priced at $1/year. Verisign's contract for .com and .net have recently been renewed, so those domains are safe for now, but I'm sure they would want similar treatment."

Google created that value

[zzg]

The word google meant nothing (I know there are other views). And now some other organization should cash in? What are googles options here?
1. Pay and redirecto to google.com
2. Don't pay, someone else will, can google then sue for trademark infringement?

ICANN'T strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they permit this? Icann.org current registration expires in 2011, however if PIR act now we can have poetic justice by 2017 when the icann.org domain renewal costs $15billion/y.

Come on PIR, Icann't object to tasting their own dog food ;-)

Market rates... Choose your poison

[Colin Smith]

Either the domain registrars will make the money or domain squatters will. Choose.

Personally I reckon they should auction names rather than selling them at a flat rate.

 

Re:Google created that value

[Anonymous Coward]

1.unnecessary, except for googles bank service maybe .... but that would redirect to cash.google.com i guess ;)
2. exactly, there is noone allowed to use that word now for something else than for -google- .... so even if someone other buys it, its about worthless to him, except google really wants to have .biz

on the other side, the competition for sex.biz should be really big, as a lot might want to have this, i hardly understand why its less worth then google.biz, as there is only one senseful client for that ... thats not capitalistic market force working there yet imho

and despite providing the root dns, what else produces costs when setting up domains ....

Net Neutrality

[Dachannien]

This is essentially network non-neutrality in other clothing. Registrants would be charged based on content or popularity, rather than by the actual level of resources provided by the registrar that are consumed by the registrant.

The only thing that makes traditional network non-neutrality more insidious is that the companies trying to impose non-neutrality want to do so because they have a product in competition with the companies they want to charge out the nose for access.

Re:Why?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

For the same reason that an acre of land in Beverly Hills California costs more than an acre in Jock Itch Wyoming. Location, location, location.

Seriously, only the top-tier Google/HP/IBM domains are going to bother with registering some of the variants. Hell, even HP can't be bothered with registering "hp.biz".

Re:Google created that value

[Anonymous Coward]

3. use their massive storage and databases of cached websites, create their own protocol to access said websites, sell cheaply/give away domains on their new protocol, thus inticing people wishing to set up sites to use their protocol instead, thus inticing people to use their procols because they have more content, and crush their opressor.

Re:Why?

[speculatrix]

icann control the root nameservers, which carry a pointer to e.g. the name server which hosts google.com's DNS

very popular sites like google will have their DNS cached almost everywhere, meaning very little actual traffic hitting the root nameservers - there will probably be MORE traffic from typo'd non-existent lookups than real ones.

This kills startup and OSS.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose that's the true vision of free markets by the Bush goverment:
You are free to buy, but not to compete.

Monopoly? AntiTrust?

[transami]

Can anyone say "Monopoly?" How about "AntiTrust"? Do those terms apply to such an organization?

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit?

[Bostik]

Once a tiered pricing thing is in place, how easy would it be for ICANN to keep constantly changing the rules?

Such as require renewable domain names to go through a competetive bidding process? ICANN wouldn't even need to monitor or assess the potential market value the domain names - the bidders would do this on their own and ICANN could just reap the profits.

So if the rules are subject to change, this will be likely abused and will eventually take on a nasty tone.

Alternate name resolution system?

[DoofusOfDeath]

One nice thing is that we can always create an alternate DNS-like service if we get too pissed off at ICANN. Not that it would be easy, but we're not entirely held hostage.

We could do any of the following:

A) Create a parallel infrastructure that uses DNS still, but that has an alternate set of servers.

B) Do something similar to what TinyUrl does: Hang our own infrastrucutre off of the current one. For instance, we register just one name such as z.com, then all names in the replacement service end in ".z.com"

C) In the most extreme case, we add new name resolution APIs to the popular operating systems, permitting us to go with a name resolution system that has a significantly different structure than DNS does.

Am I getting this straight?

[dave-tx]

OK, so if I'm reading this correctly....If my current registrar wanted to, they could decide to charge me $1000/year to renew forbis.org, my "vanity" domain name. Assuming no collusion between registrars, I would then be compelled to shop for a different registrar, one of which would likely want to offer me a low price, comparable to what I'm currently paying, knowing that it's basically free money for them.

As annoying as this seems to me, it seems like the only hassle for a non-profit like myself who has no incentive to keep the domain name (other than the fact that it is my name) would be in shopping registrars for a better price. My current registrar may want to try to price-gouge me in hopes that I don't know enough to find a new registrar, but a competing registrar would be more likely to try to attract my business.

Is this about right? Am I missing something here?

Re:Mapping is the answer

[the-amazing-blob]

And who is going to run this?

Maybe not the governments ... maybe Google.

[khasim]

Google has the brightest people and the technology.

Could Google redesign DNS and move it to a more neutral platform? I'm sure they could.

If Google handles this right, Google becomes the new center for DNS and ICANN is abandoned when they start ratcheting up the prices.

At the very least the threat from Google keeps ICANN from changing their pricing structure.

Feds vs. others

[zogger]

I think "US government" refers to the Federal government. Most on your list is controlled by state or local governments, or should be. For just one instance, there's no need for a federal department of education. You could eliminate that entire bureaucracy. Military-we aren't supposed to have a perpetual large standing Army, especally one used in non defensive interventionist wars. The fathers were especially critical of that idea, saying it would lead to despotism. Police/firemen, etc,are local issues for the most part. We don't need near three dozen federal police agencies (yes, there are almost that many). Sewage/garbage/infrastructure, etc, local for the most part.

I think it's rather easy to see how disfunctional the federal government has become, they have exclusive control over one small basically urban area, DC. Can they run even that? Always been a mess near as I can see.

We are supposed to have by design a federation of 50 near completely soverign States, and the Federal government was severely restricted in the beginning, now they operate on a default everything under the sun is their business, they assume all rights, well beyond their lawful powers, they assume the only rights you have are the ones they grant, and seem all too eager to take those away completely and restrict the rest whenever they feel like it.

Yes, the Feds could get by on much less cash, we would need to return to Constitutional governmnet, not this mishmash of government by federal executive branch decree and laws (and lawmakers) bought by transnational corporations.

Article Topic Misleading

[MasterOfMagic]

The title for this article is misleading. The article says that the contract that ICANN signed does not prohibit tiered pricing, but nowhere in the article does it say that this will be implemented by Verisign or other registries. So let's cool down for a second and act rationally. The article is basically the author thinking out loud about what this could lead to, not what is certain to happen.

Re:Market rates... Choose your poison

[gartogg]

I noticed this thread, and thought for a second (sorry, I know, Slashdotters don't do that) and here's how I figure:
Since there are a limited number of domains (especially useful ones), and it was originally a publically funded system to create the DNS system, we should auction off domains like we do wireless bandwidth: the funds will go to pay for the DNS system, and computer infrastructure projects for the poorest 10% or so of the populace, or something similar (since it was our funds creating the system, we get to do this. And maybe stuff like this will give some incentive for basic research.)

Registrars get to do what they do because they are licensed to do so by a public body. Bad idea - we all know what kind of incentive that government contractors have for efficiency. So move the system to someone with incentives. Contract the entire thing out for 1% of the net proceeds, (after hosting costs) with a quality assurance audit/financial penalty, and let the money roll in. If the bid winner wants to subcontract registrars, they can. Let the market decide.