Documents from U.S. Government question ICANN’s actions.
You’ve probably read a lot about ICANN’s introduction of new top level domains. Now, as reported over at DNJournal, the U.S. Government is weighing in. Domainers should be happy with its response.
I just completed reading the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Commerce responses to ICANN’s plans. These are perhaps the most knowledgeable and well crafted responses to the plan I’ve seen, in part because they aren’t filled with self-fulfilling comments. You should really take the time to read them.
Here’s the ultimate kicker: it is ICANN’s memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce on which ICANN bases its need to introduce new TLDs. ICANN claims that the memo requires it to create competition, and that specifically means introducing new TLDs. Now the Department of Commerce is saying the way ICANN is going about it is actually anti-competitive.
Did ICANN not run this scheme by the Department of Commerce before investing $10 million in it? I suppose it wants to be disassociated with the DoC and U.S. government, but it seems rather silly to not even discuss it beforehand.
Here’s what the government says:
1. New TLDs will not create competition for .com. .Com has benefited from the “network effect” and will not be unseated by a new TLD. It hasn’t happened to date and won’t now. People register alternatives to .com mostly as a protective measure to complement their .com domains.
2. The way ICANN is introducing new TLDs specifically won’t encourage competition. By not considering the terms the registries will offer to consumer who purchase the domains, ICANN isn’t putting consumers first and creating true competition. Price caps must be included in registry proposals to spur competition.
3. ICANN must guard against market power. This hits domainers’ main concern, variable pricing, on the head. The government points out that .com has “market power” and if left unchecked the registry (VeriSign) could charge whatever it wanted. It even points out that “variable pricing” could be employed to charge people more money if they needed the domain more. It specifically identifies companies that are protecting brands and people who have spent time creating web sites.
4. The U.S. government went further than discussing new TLDs and said that ICANN should not provide an “assumption of guaranteed renewal” to existing registries. In current agreements, operators of .com, .info, etc. are given a guaranteed right of renewal assuming they do not commit any material contract breaches. As the government points out, this hardly gives the registries a reason to compete and lower prices. The government also says ICANN’s claim that a guaranteed right to renew encourages a registry to invest more in the domain is false. Registries will still invest — perhaps even more — if it knows it will have to compete to renew its contract.
RKB says
Its good to see US Gov say it all but I am still confused why it let ICANN/Verisign raise prices before?
M. Menius says
What good news! Almost all of the central issues were addressed including the need for consumer price protection (which ICANN have repeatedly avoided addressing).
Let me say it again. This ill-conceived, and highly questionable ICANN proposal, has little to do with advancing the internet and its utility to internet users. It’s about money … and lots of it. The domain industry and its growth exceeded most everyone’s imagination and expectations, including ICANN.
This whole new ICANN gTLD proposal has appeared more a mechanism for capitalizing on the domain industry’s vigor and financially exploiting widespread international interest. The ICANN application and renewal fee for the new gTLD registries on face seem incredibly excessive.
As GoDaddy pointed out in their letter, are ICANN even equipped to manage possibly hundreds more TLD’s, and the resulting TM infringement fallout? Not to mention the level of disorganization that would be foisted on the evolved structure of the internet, i.e. the analogy of dumping a bucket of chum into a fishbowl.
I’ve read the majority of individual consumer letters and corporate responses to the ICANN proposal. And now an official government response. It’s close to unanimous. And there are very compelling reasons for that. The introduction of multiple new gTLD’s defies logic and good business sense. Most everyone recognizes that … except ICANN.
On a personal level, I’ve grown quite frustrated with the lack of transparency and accountability of the ICANN board. Investors, developers, businesses, and yes … domainers, deserve a Board that demonstrate an ability to consider the implications of critical decisions, and that DO NOT RUSH to conclusions that are obviously detrimental to large groups.
One hates to be hyper-critical. I would prefer to not waste my time contemplating and responding to these ICANN-centric problems, but so many of us have so much at stake. And yet it seems so little regard is shown by ICANN for the complexity and seriousness of the issues they oversee, and the potentially damaging EFFECTS on people and businesses. I’m quite sick of it.
It’s great that people on the net have the ability to rally around a common cause, and to collectively steer the ship toward safer waters when the captain is sailing drunk toward a waterfall. Let’s hope enough intelligent commentary has occurred to put the brakes on new gTLD’s.
jp says
I can’t figure out why it is so important that competition be created for .com. Must all playing fields be leveled? So thats what this whole thing is all about?
David J Castello says
This whole thing will get real interesting before it’s over. ICANN cannot simply ignore the US Commerce Department’s position – especially while they’re still trying to make their case to end US oversight.
Rich Hill says
This whole thing is about MONEY.
That is MONEY for ICANN.
jblack says
US registered voters should send the DOC analysis to their congress person and reiterate their support for DOC’s position.
Mark Ford says
I think maybe there is stuff about this I don’t understand. Why is the DoC involved when anyone can setup their own DNS server and thus create any TLD (or none)? Is it the case that these too should report to the DoC the moment they become universally accepted?
jp says
@Mark, just cause you have a DNS server doesn’t mean you can sell a .tld. To have a .tld you must be added to the internet’s root DNS server(s). Guess who controls them.
Mark Ford says
I think the most important issues are not about alternative TLDs but rather alternative DNSs.
The current root DNS servers are only useful if there is consensus among its users. There are alternative DNS servers that give us more TLDs. Of course, right now, they don’t have the widespread consensus I mentioned but, who knows, maybe one day they will supplant the existing system. Here are just two examples.. yes, they have had a bumpy ride but the concept stands:
New.net
https://new.net/
UnifiedRoot
http://unifiedroot.com/
Should the DoC interfere with these too?
Andrew says
@ Mark – The reason the DoC has somewhat of a say in this is because it essentially “created” ICANN.
(I said “essentially” and “created”, so don’t flame me for this generalization)
Johnny says
The U.S gov’t will always have control of the Net….it is a U.S. strength.
The Gov’t probably wanted to stay in the shadows but could not ignore ICANN’s abuse anymore.
They saw that disrupting the Net balance in this shaky economy right now is no joke and that is what ICANN was getting ready to do. And guess what, U.S business by sheer numbers would have been affected most. The Net is the U.S’s only saving grace right now…..damn good thing they realized it.