VeriSign to control ".com" domain until 2012

[accentnepal]

...    It reminds me of Ben Franklin's
comment about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to
have for dinner.   

Ah ... Democracy
However the system falls down the next day when there are only the two wolves voting.

This contract will be the direct result of the next
.com bust if signed. Literally.. You will be wiping
out an entire industry with the stroke of a pen.

Maybe I am missing something here - Yes, these guys  stand to make a pile of money, but the impact on a single  domain name would be a few dollars - hardly something to put masses of sites out of business.

Notice that the
language specifically permits access to data on "non existent domain
names" for "promoting the sale of domain names". In other words, if
example.com is getting a lot of type-in traffic, and is unregistered,
VeriSign could sell that data, thereby promoting low-cost
cybersquatting...

I have no objection to that --- as long as I get the list before anyone else does.
Yeesh  ---  talk about an untapped profit center - there are lots of people buying domains on little more than guesses that they will have traffic. Imagine having a list of  the unregistered domains with the highest traffic. Makes me wonder if this information is already getting out.

On second thought - if  people knew that all the good traffic domains are taken by the "house" they would not buy on speculation and the number of domains sold might just drop!

Why bother with all this - just set it up where ANY unregistered domain gives a verisign owned advertising page. And mandatory banner ads on .com sites, while they are at it.

[jezebel]

hardly something to put masses of sites out of business

It'll be enough to put many sites that derive a signficant chunk of their revenues from expired domain names out of business.

[regic]

there are some older settlement comments here:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/settlement-comments/

[mandy]

Update:

Eight of the world's largest domain registrars have sent an open letter to ICANN Chairman Vint Cerf, stating their formal opposition to the revised proposition with VeriSign for continued control of the Internet registry.

The eight signatories, which lay claim to 25 million domain names, or 57 percent of those currently registered, are GoDaddy, Network Solutions, Tucows, Register.com, BulkRegister, Schlund + Partner AG, Melbourne IT and Intercosmos Media Group.

In the letter, the group opposed two key items in the revised deal: Pricing and management rights.

full article: http://news.earthweb.com/bus-news/article.php/3585456

[jezebel]

The letter also hints that the deal may be illegal.

"The guarantee of an unregulated monopoly runs counter to the reasons behind why ICANN was created the policies of the anti-trust laws of the United States, and the competition policies of many nations worldwide."

If it isn't illegal it should be.

[mandy]

Marina del Rey, California, 28 February 2006: Today, ICANN's Board of Directors approved, by a majority vote, a set of agreements settling a long time dispute between ICANN and VeriSign, the registry operator for the .COM registry.

These settlement documents include a new registry agreement relating to the operation of the .COM registry. The new .COM registry agreement will now proceed to the U.S. Department of Commerce for final approval, and the entire settlement is dependent upon this approval before it is finalized. USDOC approval is required due to the unique history of the .COM generic top-level domain and it is the only gTLD which requires such approval. If approved, this settlement will clear the way for a new and productive relationship between ICANN and VeriSign facilitating ICANN's stewardship and technical coordination of the Internet's domain name system.

ICANN's Board voted 9 to 5 in favor of the settlement agreements with one director abstaining. Affirmative votes were cast by the following Board Members: Vint Cerf (Chairman), Alejandro Pisanty (Vice-Chairman), Mouhamet Diop, Demi Getschko, Hagen Hultzsch, Veni Markovski, Vanda Scartezini, Paul Twomey (President and CEO), and Hualin Qian. Directors who voted against the approval of the settlement documents were: Raimundo Beca, Susan Crawford, Joichi Ito, Njeri Rionge, and Peter Dengate Thrush. Director Michael Palage abstained. Statements by Board members on their votes will be posted on the ICANN website within the next two days.

full ICANN press release: http://www.icann.org/announcements/annou...8feb06.htm

In a special meeting of ICANN's Board of Directors, which is chaired by Internet luminary Vint Cerf, the directors voted 9 to 5 with one abstention in favor of the revised deal with the domain name registrar.

Under the terms, VeriSign will likely retain control of the .com registry until at least 2012, with the possibility for renewal after that. It also means VeriSign could increase wholesale domain prices in four of the next six years.

In a statement, VeriSign said the new .com registry agreement is straightforward and closely follows the .net registry agreement, with similar provisions on renewal and price controls, which were approved last year by the ICANN Board and Department of Commerce.

full article: http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3588341

[jezebel]

CFIT spokesperson John Berard said voting in favor of a bad deal doesn't change the deal's dynamics. He said it just confirms ICANN's refusal to listen to legitimate criticism coming from every corner of the Internet community.

"There will not be less litigation. There will likely be more litigation," Berard warned in a statement. "CFIT's suit against ICANN and VeriSign will certainly continue, especially in light of the fact that the judge in the case has upheld our antitrust claims."

The judge's antitrust ruling will undo ICANN's vote if CFIT wins. 

[mandy]

Nineteen internet companies, including Network Solutions, have asked ICANN’s Board of Directors to reconsider a controversial agreement giving VeriSign control of the .com top-level domain until 2012.

Domain name registrar GoDaddy has also petitioned the US Department of Commerce, which has yet to approve the agreement, asking that the deal be sent back to the ICANN Board.

"We will not sit back without a fight. This deal is outrageous. It's monopolistic because it locks in price hikes and eliminates good old-fashion competition. It's a mistake secretary (Carlos) Gutierrez can stop," GoDaddy.com CEO and founder Bob Parsons said...

full article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/16/..._contract/

[jezebel]

It's monopolistic because it locks in price hikes and eliminates good old-fashion competition.

The Department of Commerce doesn't care about monopolistic practices.  They looked the other way as ATT was being put back together. 

[mandy]

Update: the House Committee on Small Business will hold a hearing on the ICANN/Verisign deal on 7 June, 2006.

Notice of Hearing
Wednesday, June 7, 2006 at 2:00 PM
2360 Rayburn House Office Building
To: Members, House Committee on Small Business
From: Donald A. Manzullo
Date: June 1, 2006
Title: “Contracting the Internet: Does ICANN create a barrier to small
business?”

On WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2006 at 2:00 pm the Committee on Small Business will
hold a hearing entitled “Contracting the Internet: Does ICANN create a barrier to small
business?” in Room 2360 Rayburn House Office Building.

Through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce provides advice
and consent to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN)
management of the technical maintenance of the Internet. The purpose of this hearing is
to discuss the agreement between ICANN and VeriSign to maintain the infrastructure of
the Internet, with particular emphasis on the affect on small businesses.

If you or your staff has any questions concerning the hearing, please contact Daniel
Horowitz, Director of Coalitions, of the House Committee on Small Business at xxx-
xxxx.