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

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] ICANN should retain price caps, at least on renewals
by Andrew Allemann April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

For the reasons stated below, ICANN must reconsider its proposal to remove price caps on .info domain names, especially for renewals Market power at the time of registration It is technically true that there are a lot of choices when it comes to choosing a domain name. If I want to register example.com, I can choose to register a longer .com, opt for a .net or .info domain, a ccTLD or choose from hundreds of new top level domains such as example .xyz. But let’s face it, people usually want .com. It has extraordinary market power. Back in 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division explained <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08…>(pdf) this in a letter to ICANN regarding new top level domain names. It stated: “Our investigation of the proposed .com agreement generated several findings that bear on the likely effect of creating new gTLDs. First, we found that VeriSign possesses significant market power as the operator of the .com registry because many registrants do not perceive .com and other gTLDs (such as .biz and .info) and country code TLDs (“ccTLDS,” such as .uk and .de) to be substitutes… …We also concluded that existing gTLDS would not become a competitive threat to .com registrations because the network effects that make .com registrations so valuable to consumers will be difficult for other TLDs to overcome. Due to a first-mover advantage and high brand awareness, .com registrations account for the overwhelming majority of gTLD registrations… Even with the introduction of hundreds of new top level domains since this letter was written, they have barely chipped away at .com’s market power. Do other TLDs have market power? I’d argue .org does. Charities and non-profits often think of .org first instead of .com. The antitrust department noted: “Finally, our investigation of the .com agreement found evidence that other gTLD registry operators may possess a degree of market power. The market power inherent in other gTLDs is less than the market power in .com, but is still material.” In order of power in the gTLD market, I’d argue that .com is highest and .org is second highest. ccTLDs also have market power in some countries. The presence of market power for initial registrations suggests that prices for some top level domains should be restricted. A non-profit is unlikely to choose .charity over .org unless it is unable to acquire the .org domain. It will usually choose an alternate, longer .org domain before choosing something else. This might not be true in twenty years but it is true in 2019. For top level domains that don’t have market power and are easy substitutes for each other, controlling initial registration prices is not as important. That’s part of the reason people are complaining more about .org price caps than .info. High switching costs and market power at the time of renewal Domain names have immense switching costs. Companies that switch from one domain name to another often spend months planning the move. Some spend years. Some spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are two reasons the switching costs are high. First is search engines. Google is the lifeblood of many website’s traffic. Even the best-planned domain name transition can have serious traffic (and thus monetary) impacts. When HomeAdvisor switched its domain from ServiceMagic.com it saw a marked drop in traffic and revenue. On its conference call after switching domains, the company stated <https://domainnamewire.com/2013/05/09/homeadvisor-domain-change/>: HomeAdvisor domestic revenue was negatively impacted by a 20% decrease in accepted service requests due primarily to the domain name change. 20% from a domain name change! It took the company a while to regain the search rankings it had before. Even companies that create and manage websites for a living have to expend significant resources <https://domainnamewire.com/2015/12/04/how-a-creative-agency-switched-from-c…> to change domain names. It can be done but it’s very difficult. The second reason for high switching costs is email. Companies often have thousands of email addresses tied to their domain name. These email addresses are then tied to many online accounts. Switching domain names means updating all the mailboxes technically and all the accounts associated with them. It means emailing all customers and telling them about the new addresses. It undoubtedly means missing some important emails when the switch happens. I have an acquaintance who was offered over $200,000 for a domain name he registered in 1997. He declined because he and his family have email addresses tied to the domain. It would mean changing hundreds of account registrations at websites and countless hours of work. It’s one thing to switch email addresses if the company retains its prior domain name and can forward email to the new one. But if a company has to relinquish an old domain name due to renewal costs, it will miss out on this email forwarding and probably miss important messages. These high switching costs make domain owners hostages to the registries that operate their domains. They simply have to pay whatever they are charged. The cost to switch is too much. For this reason, renewal costs *must* be capped. How domain registration and renewal costs should be managed Some top level domains have market power at the time of registration. All top level domains have tremendous power over registrants at the time of renewal. For this reason, ICANN should consider capping initial registry fees for top level domains that have some level of market power, such as .com and .org. It should limit prices on *all* domains at the time of renewal. The organization has stated that registrants have some protection because they can renew domains for up to ten years at current prices before price hikes take effect. There are two problems with this. First, the registries must notify the registrars of the price increase. It’s up to the registrars to notify customers. Busy customers might overlook these notices or not have the cash to renew for ten years today. Second, and most importantly, this just kicks the can down the road. What does a company do ten years from now when it has to pay the new rates.

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Proposed Renewal of Registry Agreement for .INFO
by Steve DelBianco April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Proposed Renewal of Registry Agreements for .INFO and .ORG This comment was drafted by Steve DelBianco, Mark Datysgeld, and Andrew Mack. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Price Increase Proposal
by ANDREW HESCH April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Dear Sir or Madam, I am a small business person with an .info website address. Pease accept this feedback that I am against the unlimited pricing increases that are proposed. I simply cannot afford to pay for more than the current capped pricing structure. Please continue pricing as it currently is and do not lift the current caps on increases. Thank you, Andy Hesch Owner Hesch Insurance Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] NO to the proposed removal of caps on legacy TLDs
by Michael Neuffer April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

The proposed removal of the caps on the gTLDs (biz/info/org) would only drive up prices for all users and line the pockets of ICANN and the owners of the privatized registries while ignoring the long history of those TLDs. The gTLDs are are common resource the current registries are just their stewards. So this is a resounding NO to this proposal. Instead the new TLDs should receive a cap as well once they reach a certain size. Kind regards Michael Neuffer

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Comment by Telepathy Inc. in opposition to the renewal of the .info agreement
by Nat Cohen April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am writing to oppose the terms of the proposed .info renewal agreement for the reasons offered in the comment submitted by the Internet Commerce Association at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-info-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/000203.… and as discussed in the CircleID article "The Spurious Justifications for Eliminating Price Caps on .org and other Legacy Domains" located here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_eliminat… The legacy domain names, including .info and .org, were handed over to ICANN as trustee to manage for the public benefit. ICANN has betrayed that trust by turning .info over to a private company to exploit for its own benefit. Of the various rationale given in support of this policy, *that ICANN does not want to "become a price regulator" is the most disingenuous and pernicious*. ICANN as a *trustee of the public interest* for the legacy domains is, and always has been, and unless it abdicates its responsibility, will continue to be a setter of prices within the legacy extensions. Has ICANN throughout its history been overstepping its authority when it entered into agreements that included terms governing pricing? The US Department of Justice viewed ICANN's role as creating competitive mechanisms, such as putting registry agreements out for rebid, to keep prices low for registrants, and failing that, the DOJ clearly stated it was ICANN's role to manage the TLDs in a manner that "*safeguards the interests of registrants* in obtaining high quality domains *at the lowest possible prices*." ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08… ) The DOJ expressly stated that *ICANN should set price caps* in the absence of putting out registries for competitive bid: "Because ICANN's proposed registry agreement lacks any [pricing] safeguards,... ICANN should consider revising the proposed registry agreement, at least for instances where there is not competitive bidding to operate a new gTLD, to include provisions designed to limit the ability of the registry operator to exercise market power, i.e., *price caps*..." The DOJ called for agreements that included *a maximum price and limitations on price increases*: "ICANN's requests for bids [to operate a new gTLD] should expressly call for bids to specify *an initial maximum price* that would be charged by the operator for domain registrations, as well as* limitations on price increases *over time.." The DOJ knew that relying on market forces and competition were not adequate where registries had market power. The DOJ found that .com and other gTLD registry operators had *market power*: "our investigation of the .com agreement found evidence that *other gTLD registry operators may possess a degree of market power*. The market power inherent in other gTLDs is less than the market power in .com, but is still material..." and "Further, *the introduction of new gTLDs is not likely to constrain the market power by existing gTLDs*..." On the one hand we have a registry talking point that ICANN should not "become a price regulator". On the other hand, the US Department of Justice is castigating ICANN for not doing enough to protect registrants since "ICANN has not come close to fulfilling its obligations to employ competitive principles in its management of TLD registry operations." As a consequence, since ICANN has created an environment where registries have market power "*ICANN should take steps to protect consumers from the exercise of market power by gTLD operators*". The nature of developed domains as online brands, means that once established there is no substitute for that domain and the registrant is locked into continued use of that domain as long as it wants to continue using its brand. ICANN is creating a situation akin to the USPTO allowing a private company the right to set whatever price it wanted for trademark owners to continue using their trademarks or else the trademark owner would be forced to abandon the right to its trademark. I believe this commenter expresses the issue well: This is basically sanctioning extortion, a domain name is closer to a trademark, except a company is apparently not allowed to own it... instead they *must keep "leasing" their trademark from a registrar*. What do I get for improving my domain name (making my business known, improving public trust, running a well known blog/ news site)? Clearly higher rent costs on that same name. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/001439.h… There is nothing pro-competitive about the proposed agreement. It is a set up for extortion. This approach should be rethought with appropriate price safeguards established.

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Please help keep our non-commercial Internet costs down
by ian April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

As you can see by the sparse amount of comments for the ".info" top-level domain, there's not a whole lot of us out there. Please help protect our minority interests by keeping the costs down on .info domain registration. You have the power to do this, and we would appreciate your support in protecting our primarily non-commercial interests by keeping our costs affordable. Thank you for your consideration!

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Comment
by bb120190＠fastmail.fm April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Why is it deemed necessary to remove price-increase caps? Are running costs increasing that much from year to year despite no evidence of similar cost increases in other parts of the Internet and IT sectors? Domain rental is expensive enough as it is, and these caps are one of the few things preventing domain registration from potentially turning into a complete free-market free-for-all accessible only to the rich. There are and can be no reasonable grounds for removing these caps. J Gerrard, domain tenant.

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .info & .biz Registry Agreements
by Saron Harford April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Hello, I am very concerned about the removal of price caps currently being discussed for .info and .biz domains. It will directly affect my business and hundreds of thousands of small business owners just like me. 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. 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. 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. I hope you will take my concerns seriously. Kind regards, | | | Saron Harford | | Designer & Developer | | Tiger-Fruit Web & Graphic Design | | m: | +353 868 272 999 | | w: | www.tiger-fruit.com e: saron(a)tiger-fruit.com | | Thank you for supporting Irish business

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Keep the price cap on INFO
by Brady Owens April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I write to oppose the removal of price caps on any of the “legacy” TLDs as doing so will only create a free-for-all on limitless price increases across the well-established board. These legacy domain names, some of which have been registered for many years, are unlike the new mess being created and owners of these legacy names have a reasonable expectation of affordability and stability. Brady Owens Owner Fastglass LLC tele: 617.682.9484 email: info(a)fastglass.net

1 0

[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Proposed removal of pricing cap on .info
by Humphrey Drummond April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Dear ICANN I run my family email on a .info site. I object to the pricing cap being removed. I actually struggle to pay the current fees. Regards Humphrey Drummond

1 0