April 2019 - comments-info-renewal-18mar19@icann.org

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Maintain price caps on .info domains.
by Derrel Fincher April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

As described, the Pricing for Domain Name Registrations and Registry Services (Section 2.10 of the .org renewal agreement) indicates that there will be no regulation of price, but there is only one Registry Operator. That constitutes a monopoly, and it will be seen and lobbied against as such. There is a reason monopolies are regulated; please consider doing so here to contain prices. Derrel Fincher -- Representative - Oklahoma House District 11 2300 N Lincoln Blvd., Rm 329, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 derrel.fincher(a)okhouse.gov<mailto:derrel.fincher@okhouse.gov> | (405) 557-7358 NOTICE: The information in this email is confidential, legally privileged, and exempt from disclosure under law. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and unlawful. The Oklahoma House of Reps does not warrant any e-mail transmission received as being virus free, and disclaims any liability for losses or damages arising from the use of this e-mail or its attachments. Recipients of e-mail assume the risk of possible computer virus exposure by opening or utilizing the e-mail and its attachments, and waive any right or recourse against the House by doing so.

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] 2019 .org/.info TLD proposed registry agreement
by Wolfgang Faust April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

Like many others who have already submitted comments on this proposal, I have grave concerns about the provision to remove the price caps on registry fees for .info and .org top level domains. (I refrain from commenting on .biz as I do not own any such domains nor do I personally frequent websites using this TLD, but my concerns are applicable there also.) I say this not only as the owner of several domains (for whom these potential price increases have a direct monetary impact), but also more generally as a user of Web sites and Internet services. There is already growing social concern about the centralization of access to information with large corporations, who increasingly mediate the average person's experiences and interactions on the Internet. The Domain Name System provides a valuable part of the antidote to this problem: it allows individuals to set up their own corner of the Internet as they wish, largely unbeholden to anyone else; and allows anyone else to easily locate it on demand. This latter aspect is what makes pricing of domain names critical: because the domain name is the identifier used to locate a site or service, abandoning it breaks the ability for others to find it easily, and moving domain names requires rebuilding all links and trust from scratch, a long and tedious process which can never be fully completed. If a registry is allowed to raise fees in an arbitrary and unbounded manner, many of these registrants will decide that the expense is no longer worth it and abandon the registration--or even be forced to as the costs become unaffordable. Additionally, ICANN's justification for this change is that it will "allow the .info renewal agreement to better conform with the base registry agreement, but also takes into consideration the maturation of the domain name market and the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement." While simplicity is an admirable goal, it seems to me that it should not serve as the primary justification for such a drastic and far-reaching change. I therefore evaluate this explanation primarily on the merits of the other two reasons given: * "maturation of the domain name market": It is not clear to me what, precisely, this is intended to mean; I take it as a reference to both the relative fullness of the legacy TLD namespace (as most common words and phrases have already been registered), and to the availability of new gTLDs. Presumably ICANN is worried about domain name squatters, and hopes that the rising prices will reduce the incentives to hold unused domain names for future profit, and believes that competition with new gTLDs will keep the prices of legacy TLD domains will keep prices to a reasonable level. I fear that this may be a cure worse than the disease: as I argue above, raising prices will also affect many domain owners who are putting their domain registrations to constructive uses, and for these registrants it is not practical to promote competition by changing TLD as this has a significant impact on those operations. * "the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement": Setting aside the legacy gTLDs using the base agreement (of which I am unable to find a list, which makes it difficult to do any research), I will discuss only the comparison with new gTLDs. This argument is couched in terms of equality, but doing so conflates the two and masks the fundamental differences between the two. The new gTLDs were introduced as "green-field" namespaces, fully controlled (modulo the agreement with ICANN) by the purchasing registry and with no existing users. Since they had purchased these TLDs at their own expense and risking their own resources, the registries of these new TLDs were not subject to similar price caps and could thus set prices as they wished. While registrants of new gTLDs incurred a risk of uncapped price increases, this possibility was known when they initially purchased the domain, and they presumably accepted the possibility of price changes when making the initial decision to register under that TLD. In contrast, the legacy gTLDs have many long-time users, in some cases dating back to before the creation of ICANN, and so when management of them was contracted out a price cap was specified to protect these existing users. To allow these prices to be raised now would disproportionately impact these users, who put their faith in the DNS's continued stability long before such a move as this could have been forseen. In summary, this proposal is in direct contradiction to ICANN's stated purpose[1], "management of the DNS in a manner that will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer choice in the technical management of the DNS," intended to "lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and satisfaction." If put into effect, it will have precisely the opposite effect, raising costs, promoting entrenched organizations, and reducing user satisfaction. In light of this, and considering the public outcry about this matter both in the public comments section and elsewhere on the Internet, I strongly encourage ICANN to reconsider not only this proposal but also the decisions that led to it being suggested in the first place. ICANN should return to its original intent as a group for coordinating operation of the Internet and representing the global user community. [1]: https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en -- Wolfgang J. Faust https://www.linestarve.com/ (and several other domains)

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Domain registry fees for INFO domains
by Jon F Caudle Jr April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

I find it unconscionable that an organization with a monopoly on domain names would have the power to charge whatever fee they choose. If there is no competition permitted in this, then they should be strictly regulated as to pricing. Jon Caudle 335475 P O Box 1409 Jefferson City, MO 65102-1409

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement
by Carl Abbott April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

Please DO NOT change the limits on PIR price increases of .info domains. If anything, the amount of increase they charge should go down to the inflation rate of a few percent. Sincerely, Carl Abbott CenterTao <https://www.centertao.org/> When answers aren't enough :)

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] INFO domain names
by Chris Schroeck April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

ICANN should be doing MORE, not less, to protect owners of .info domain names. What is the point of ICANN trying to remove price protections for .info domain owners, so businesses can be overcharged for their domain names? What possible advantage does it have? This seems like a short-sighted money grab to make 1 company richer at the cost of hundred or thousands of businesses. Do the right thing and do not eliminate any caps on registration costs. Sincerely, Chris Schroeck

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] .info changes
by Jeff Coward April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

We need to keep the cap on domain costs across the board for the sake of small businesses, non-profits, & start up projects. The decision to remove the cap leaves the door open for whole sale buyers to be charged more which trickles down to the consumer. We don’t want to stifle creativity on the web which I fear will be the result of increased prices on domains. - Jeff Self-Employed Web Designer & Online Marketer Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] .info
by Jared Rimer April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I run a .info web site and it needs to be affordable for everyone. Please keep this in mind when making your decision. -- Jared Rimer The Jared Rimer Network, where everything is listed in one place www.jaredrimer.net

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Please don't increase domain name prices
by Jen Lampton April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I'm a firm believer in a fair and open internet, and by increasing the cost of domain names many poorer people, or people from poorer parts of the world, will be excluded from participating in the web. The internet should not be another place where only the Rich are allowed. I would hate to see our society loose its last place level playing field.

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Keep the cap on fees
by Frasier Linde April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

Please do not remove the cap on registration fees. We need to keep the internet as level a playing field as possible so that anyone can participate. Sincerely, Frasier Linde

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement
by Raveesh Nagpal April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I am a domain name registrant. Legacy gTLDs are fundamentally different from for-profit new gTLDs and should be treated that way. Legacy TLDs are what the internet was built on. They are essentially a public trust. They are very different than new gTLDs which were created, bought and paid for by private parties. Registrants of these legacy extensions should be entitled to price predictability & stability. Advancements in technology should be driving the cost of operating a registry down, yet prices keep going up? Removing price caps is unfair to the millions of domain registrants. They will have no price protections. Every registrant will be at the complete mercy and whims of the registry. This could result in a transfer of funds from millions of non-profits to one non-profit, with no benefits to the domain registrants. ICANN is supposed to represent a "bottom up, consensus-driven multistakeholder model". ICANN should not unilaterally impose URS in legacy TLDs when that issue is precisely what is being examined by the volunteer ICANN Working Group who has been mandated to review this issue. ICANN should be looking out for the .info registrants, in particular the non-profits. There is no "public benefit" justification to these changes. It is just a handout to business at the expense of registrants’ rights and protections. Where are the protections for the millions of domain registrants that this could effect in a negative way? These changes would give way too much power to the registry. This is not acceptable for a "public benefit" organization that exists to represent many stakeholders.

1 0