Featured Domains

TrueName by donuts. Make a name for yourself

IANA transition will not remove government relationship with .com contract

Department of Commerce will still have a say over .com prices.

Today, ICANN posted proposed contracts with Verisign (NYSE:VRSN) for the Root Zone Management Agreement (RZMA) and an extension of the .com registry contract.

The RZMA is a necessary step for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to step out of its role in the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract.

The RZMA will transfer some of Verisign’s role that’s currently part of the government’s Verisign Cooperative Agreement to an agreement between Verisign and ICANN.

However, the Verisign Cooperative Agreement will live on post-transition.

Crucially, this means the Department of Commerce will still be a party to .com contracts going forward.

Why is this important? It was the Department of Commerce that stepped in to keep a lid on prices the last time the .com contract was extended.

ICANN had approved increases that could have meant paying $10.29 wholesale for a .com this year, rather than the $7.85 you currently pay. Department of Commerce mandated that prices remain flat.

It’s important to note that the proposed extension of the .com contract published today is separate from contractual negotiations over price.

The most in-depth analysis of the global domain market

Get Our Newsletter

Stay up-to-date with the latest analysis and news about the domain name industry by joining our mailing list.


No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Reader Interactions

Comments

    Leave a Comment

  1. John says

    https://domainnamewire.com/2016/06/29/strickling-responds-rubio-et-al-iana-transition/#comment-2239570

    Does the “transition” guarantee that .com could never be transferred to a non-US company despite the “presumptive right of renewal” you have been mentioned in today’s posts, given the vast vested interest of US business in .com that makes it virtually the de facto US country domain even?

    Does it guarantee that .gov could never be anything but the exclusive domain of US government organizations? Does it prevent ICANN from suddenly changing that if it wants?

    Does it guarantee that .mil could never be anything but the exclusive domain of the US military? Does it prevent ICANN from suddenly changing that if it wants?

    • John Berryhill says

      Do you understand that the US government, through NASA and the DOD, operates 3 of the 13 root servers?

      It wouldn’t matter if ICANN wanted to change the .mil to Iran, I seriously doubt that the root server operators would implement that.

      Governments, as a whole, have less power under the transition structure than they do currently.

      Your repeated reference to articles which do not base their analysis on the actual transition proposal itself, is simply spreading FUD. You have yet to explain exactly how, under the proposed transition structure, and in view of the fact that ICANN remains a California corporation quite subject to US laws and jurisdiction would be hi-jacked by some hostile government intent on hi-jacking a TLD. Please explain the procedure under which that would occur in the proposed transition structure, and how you believe it would survive arbitration under the terms of the structure itself, litigation in California, or the enforcement of US criminal law (including the national security provisions thereof)?

      If you are unable to explain how that would play out, step-by-step, then you might as well claim that the IANA transition will cause widespread tooth decay and make kitty sad.

      • John says

        >”Do you understand that the US government, through NASA and the DOD, operates 3 of the 13 root servers? […]”

        Really, and how long do you think that will last? And are we dealing with an ICANN who likes that idea, or an ICANN that really does want power and control over that?

        https : // www .isoc . org/briefings/020/

        “Q: So ICANN does not control root name server operations?

        A: […] The establishment of such authority has been on ICANN’s agenda from the start. It is mentioned in various guises in the MoU between ICANN and the US DoC. However none of this has ever been implemented. I do not believe ICANN, or anyone, should have control over the operation of all root name servers. So this goal should be removed from ICANN’s agenda. […]”

        >”and in view of the fact that ICANN remains a California corporation quite subject to US laws and jurisdiction […] arbitration […] litigation in California”

        Is that some kind of joke? Like they are really going to keep that status involuntarily for as long as anyone wants them to, and like anyone can do anything about it if they decide to pick up and move if they are enabled to do so? And you really want to trust some arbitration panel?

        Uncertainty and doubt have their place in life, and are exactly what is called for now.

        >”Please explain the procedure under which that would occur in the proposed transition structure”

        Any number of ways, both seen and unforeseen?

        And obviously it’s not just about “hijacking a TLD” but about every other way in which the current level of freedom and opportunity can be compromised or subverted in varying degrees as flawed people with all their faults seek to influence other flawed people with all their faults.

        So Chehade’s jumping into bed with China means nothing to you and suggests nothing about the risks inherent in an independent ICANN free from US oversight?

        Negari and friends with .XYZ gratifying China’s demands means nothing to you and suggests nothing?

        Zuckerberg bending over backwards to curry favor with China means nothing to you and suggests nothing?

        Apple thumbing its nose at the US government but gladly serving to please the demands of China means nothing to you and suggests nothing?

        How about you explain exactly why the “transition” is necessary and why something that isn’t broken needs to be fixed in the first place?

        • Aaron Strong says

          John – Agreed! There are a number of procedures that could occur for a hostile takeover of some sort, both seen and unforeseen…….. ICANN has a history for being unaccountable and suddenly we are to trust their unproven multi-stake model consisting of differing agendas that compromise human rights?….The Titanic was said to be “unsinkable”, where is it now?

        • John Berryhill says


          >”Please explain the procedure under which that would occur in the proposed transition structure”

          Any number of ways, both seen and unforeseen?”

          In other words, you can’t.

          It was a simple question, and going off on some ad hominem adventure about Fehade and Negari is not an answer to that question.

          Such is the way of anonymous keyboard warriors.

          • John says

            >”How about you explain exactly why the “transition” is necessary and why something that isn’t broken needs to be fixed in the first place?”

            Yes that was a simple question too, but it seems you can’t either. Or won’t.

            No doubt you are accustomed to thinking you are the one who gets to ask the questions.

            Unfortunately you never learned the meaning of “ad hominem” either, or the difference between that and evidence which is merely relevant to the premises of a conclusion, such as that of why anyone with common sense and ordinary life experience knows that “uncertainty and doubt” have their proper place in life and are called for regarding this issue given what anyone twelve years old or less and up knows about simple human nature and human tendencies.

          • John says

            (Note to reader: my reply to this is there, but also “awaiting moderation” now. See posts below on that.)

      • John says

        For those who might see this, my reply to that from several hours ago is still “awaiting moderation,” but every confidence Andrew will take care of it when he has the time…

          • John says

            Actually you are the one who is imagining things there. Andrew really has addressed and indicated numerous times that this is an issue he has no control over, and I really did have every confidence he would take care of it when he had opportunity. As an attorney you should know that you can’t accuse someone of suggesting a “conspiracy” until they actually do it, but making the type of charge or insinuation against someone you just did certainly is one of the most common well known cheap tricks of the trade among those who don’t agree with something and don’t like what they hear. You might even call that an “implied ad hominem” on your part…

  2. Aaron Strong says

    It’s disturbing that the proponents of the transition are justifying the changes so we don’t upset “authoritarian” governments…The same governments with continued human rights abuse…

    • John says

      Apparently those authoritarian governments can make up their mind either, so the original reason being the threat to “balkanize” the Internet must have been a fairy tale after all (wink, wink):

      thehill . com/policy/technology/282009-cruz-touting-bill-as-last-chance-to-delay-internet-domain-handoff

      “I think they’ve got themselves twisted in knots on this one,” he said. “The governments that oppose this transition are primarily China and Russia. And that should tell you something about what interests are behind trying to keep government control over the internet.”

      Or maybe what they really want to say now is “Did we we say we wanted this transfer? Is that what we said? No, no, we oppose the transfer. Yeah, that’s it.”

      • John says

        >”but making the type of charge or insinuation against someone you just did certainly is one of the most common well known cheap tricks of the trade among those who don’t agree with something and don’t like what they hear.”

        Honestly, someone should be getting a royalty for that tactic.

Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News
%d bloggers like this: