Devious Doings on the Internet

[chrystalline]

I was checking a domain on whois, and came across this. Being unwilling to pass along alarms until I've checked things out, I went looking for ICANN, who said this.

Bob Parsons suggests writing to your congresscritter. At this point, I'm thinking that may be a better idea than trying to reach ICANN, since they have apparently already stopped accepting input. The email address is still there, but they did say they'd stop at noon UTC.

So I'm too late for the comment period; I didn't know what UTC was (didn't realize it was the same as GMT). I sent my comment anyway:

Well, I am neither a registrar nor a mindless sheep, and I also think this is a bad idea. For starters, how in the world did anyone think it was a good idea to settle lawsuits against Verisign by giving them control over a significant chunk of domain registry? It was getting to be too much work to keep mending the fences, so we put the fox in charge of the henhouse? With (how many? It's not easy to find a number here) actionable instances of misbehavior on Verisign's record, rewarding them in this way is counter-productive at best.

Competition is crucial to the success of business. When a company achieves monopoly, assuming Anti-Trust laws don't break it up, it stagnates. The monopoly assumes it can do whatever it wants, with the result that, if people are able to leave, they will. Companies that have no choice will remain with .com, but the majority of internet denizens are a feisty bunch, and are most likely to leave the .com extension in droves. Frankly, I don't want to have to give up my four .com domains, but the idea of being trapped in this way is extremely distasteful to me.

Regarding the increased charges, only a dreamer would believe that Verisign will not find a way to pass on increased costs. It's a basic fact of business - the cost of business is passed on to the middlemen and then to the consumers. This stated restriction only means they won't be able to call it what it is.

I understand needing to have a central organization to manage the registration of domains, but it was my understanding that ICANN was that organization. If it is not up to the challenge, perhaps a more democratized method should be found. I would be much more in favor of an internet congress than this proposal.

All in all, the idea of having Verisign in charge of *anything* ticks me off. If I recall correctly, it wasn't more than five years ago that they were tricking people into switching to them by sending ads that looked like domain expiration notices. I wonder what an internet declaration of independence would look like?

ETA:

Didn't like the form message Bob had, so I combined his and mine. This is what I sent to my congresscritters:

I wanted to call your attention to the recently revised .com registry agreement and proposed settlement between ICANN and VeriSign, and to express my disapproval of it. I am neither a registrar nor a mindless sheep, and I think this is a very bad idea. For starters, how in the world did anyone think it was a good idea to settle lawsuits against VeriSign by giving them control over a significant chunk of domain registry? It was getting to be too much work to keep mending the fences, so we put the fox in charge of the henhouse? With actionable instances of misbehavior on VeriSign's record, rewarding them in this way is counter-productive at best.

This pending agreement is anticompetitive and bad for consumers and the Internet community as a whole. The proposed agreement provides VeriSign with the ability to increase prices by 7% annually in four of the next six years without cost justification. Furthermore, under the new agreement, VeriSign's monopoly would run in perpetuity as the agreement would automatically renew without the opportunity for competitive bidding. This is an outrage. VeriSign and ICANN should not be allowed to establish a perpetual monopoly without Congressional oversight and the opportunity for input from the Internet community. What angers me even more is how this has been done relatively quietly. I have a hard time accepting that this has been through more than one stage before I even heard about it.

Competition is crucial to the success of business. When a company achieves monopoly, assuming Anti-Trust laws don't break it up, it stagnates. The monopoly assumes it can do whatever it wants, with the result that, if people are able to leave, they will. Companies that have no choice will remain with .com, but the majority of Internet denizens are a feisty bunch, and are most likely to leave the .com extension in droves. Frankly, I don't want to have to give up my four .com domains, but the idea of being trapped in this way is extremely distasteful to me.

The proposed agreement harms the Internet community by allowing unjustified price increases when fees for .com domain names should be decreasing, not increasing. Even VeriSign last year agreed to drop fees by more than 40% for .net domain names to win an extension of that registry agreement. There is no reason VeriSign shouldn't be implementing the same type of price decreases for .com names, as well.

Regarding the "donation" from VeriSign - only a dreamer would believe that VeriSign will not find a way to pass on increased costs. It's a basic fact of business that the cost of business is passed on to the middlemen and then to the consumers. The stated restriction that they are not permitted to pass on certain charges only means they won't be able to call it what it is.

I understand needing to have a central organization to manage the registration of domains, but it was my understanding that ICANN was that organization. If it is not up to the challenge, perhaps a more democratized method should be found. I would be much more in favor of an Internet congress than this proposal.

As your constituent, I would sincerely appreciate if you would look into this agreement and ensure that VeriSign and ICANN are not allowed to go forward with it in its current form. If the ICANN Board approves this anticompetitve agreement, the next step is for the NTIA to approve. I urge you to also bring our concerns to the attention of the NTIA.

Sincerely,
Chrystalline Lauryl