Since Google does nothing without thought, is this demonstration by them that they can handle a greater DNS load than VeriSign a subtle sign that they might challenge for operation of the dot-com registry?
GeorgeK writes: "To update Wednesday's Slashdot article, VeriSign, the.com/net domain name registry, has withdrawn their controversial proposal which would have allowed them to suspend domains without a court order and without due process. VeriSign did not give a reason for the withdrawl. Slashdot 1, VeriSign 0."
GeorgeK writes: "VeriSign, the monopoly registry operator for.com/.net domain names, has submitted a proposal to ICANN describing an "Anti-Abuse" policy. If they are allowed to proceed with such a policy, they would become judge, jury and executioner, with the ability to suspend or even cancel alleged "abusive" domain names without due process for registrants.
The proposal even recognizes that legitimate domain names may be taken down improperly, and offers a "protest" procedure. However, VeriSign does not appear to offer any ability to protest an accusation of abuse before the suspension or cancellation. They intend to "shoot first and ask questions later.""
In particular, the draft contracts remove price controls in the proposed contracts. Existing gTLD contracts have an "equal treatment" clause, though, that permits registry operators to copy terms that are accepted by ICANN in other gTLDs. Thus, existing gTLDs like.com which do have price controls would be able to have those price controls removed if the draft contracts for new gTLDs are adopted as-is.
This would re-open the issue of tiered pricing for domains that the registry operators lost 2 years ago due to public outcry. I urge everyone who does not want.tv style pricing in.com or other gTLDs, where the renewal price of any domain can be set unilaterally by the registry operator based on the quality of the domain, to voice their concerns while the public comment period is still open. Once again, ICANN has not been representing the needs of registrants when they produce these sloppy draft contracts that threaten existing domain registrants with unlimited price increases."
GeorgeK writes: Imagine, you've built a great website, and are on top of the world due to all the incoming visitors and sales revenues. Your competitors envy you, as do your neighbours. Your online brand has become very valuable, and when people think of widgets, the first website that comes to mind is your site. Life is good.
You open the mail, though, and see a renewal notice for your domain name that is $75,000/yr, instead of the $10/yr that you were used to. You call up your registrar, thinking "this must be a typo". But, instead, you are told, "due to the success and high value you are receiving from your domain, the renewal fee really is $75,000/yr."
When ICANN's Board approved a highly controversial new.com agreement with VeriSign earlier in 2006 (which thankfully the Department of Commerce has yet to approve) as settlement for the SiteFinder lawsuit, other registries wanted to get the same spoils that VeriSign received, including presumptive renewal and the ability to raise domain prices. VeriSign's price increases for.com would be capped at 7% per year, though. These new proposed contracts leapfrog VeriSign, and shockingly propose to remove all pricing caps entirely. The only protection existing domain registrants would have is the 6-month notice period, and the ability to renew their domains at the old price for up to 10 years from the present.
A loophole in the contract, which ICANN has confirmed exists would go even further and create an ominous scenario, though. It would not forbid registries from charging different renewal or registration prices on a tiered/differential domain-by-domain basis. This would be comparable to the.TV registry pricing model. Thus, for example, the renewal fee for Sex.biz could be raised to $100,000/yr, for movies.info $25,000/yr, for Google.org $1 million/yr, and so on — whatever would maximize the profits of registries.
Registries have seen what DSL and cable companies are trying to do, to break network neutrality and charge discriminatory prices to maximize their profits at the expense of website operators (for example, charge higher rates to Google or Yahoo or Microsoft, for access to their subscriber base, knowing that Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are very profitable). Registries are very shrewd, and these new contracts would not forbid them from discriminatory pricing to emulate what ISPs would like to do.
If these flawed contracts are approved for.biz,.info, and.org, it would not be a huge leap to think that VeriSign might take advantage of the precedent, and attempt to achieve the same pricing power for.com and.net through future contractual negotiations with an ICANN that has routinely failed to protect domain registrants' interests.