The House subcommittee on the new gTLD’s just ended in Washington and it was as bloody as expected.
Of course the representative from ICANN, Kurt Pritz its Senior Vice President, didn’t help himself or ICANN but making inaccurate statements, failing to explain the new gTLD process properly or putting the new gTLD process in a positive light.
IP trademark interests dominated the hearing not only though the witnesses that were called but in statements made by the Representatives which appearently we well lobbied by IP Interests.
As few of the more interesting comments out of the 2 1/2 hour hearing came from Kurt Pritz of ICANN who predicted there would be 200 new gTLD’s withing the first 24 months after launch which is in contradiction to ICANN’s own budget, which anticipates 500 applications.
One Congressman asked Mr. Pritz, in response to his claim of 200 new gTLD’s
“Do you think you can handle 10 times the number of extensions currently in existence in the next 24 months?”
He further asked:
I see you have $92 million from application fees in your budget (ICANN) but only have $35m budgeted for costs so what is the plan for the rest of the money?”
Mr. Pritz did not have a good answer.
A few other Representative asked if the ICANN board vote scheduled for June 20th on the new gTLD’s could be posponed to which Mr. Pritz response was:
“We have had a 7 year period of discussion on the new gTLD’s”
“There are no new issues”
“Every issue that needed to be discussed has been discussed”
“ICANN has listened to all interests including those in the room and needs to bring this to a close.”
One Representative Mr. Darrell Issa of California, questioned why the cost of a domain registration was so high, but also expressed he had no love for domainers
“Why can’t I register a Domain Name at Godaddy for a penny per domain, rather than $10? The cost to provide that service just isn’t that high”
“Why isn’t ICANN major goals to lower the cost of domain registrations to pennies from its current cost and prevented domains from being “camped on” for resale?”
“Why do I have to pay $6,000, $8,000 or $10,000 for a domain because someone has camped on it?”
“Why isn’t that ICANN’s main goal to stop this?
To which Mr. Pritz answered:
“Domainers are against new gTLD’s because they will lose the value of their beachfront property.”
Really?
Domainers are you worried that your .com beachfront property values will be lost because of the new extensions?
Don’t think so.
Most domainers feel like .com is the king and will continue to be the king and don’t feel like the new gTLD’s have any chance of devaluing their .Com’s, so this is just a false statement.
Unfortunely it wasn’t the only false statement made by Mr. Pritz.
Kurt boasting abotu ICANN achievements said that:
“Domains used to cost $80 for a registration now they cost no more than $8 or $10.”
Kurt domains never cost $80 for a registration they cost $70 when Network Solutions was the only game in town but that was also for two years.
So while prices have dropped to $8 or $10 that is per year so that equals $16 0r $20.
I mean lets give accurate information when your testifying in front of a House Committee.
Unfortunately no one thought bringing up the about the Verisign contract in response to the inquiry why the cost of a domain registration is so high.
Nor that fact that it looks like the cost will continue to grow by 7% in 4 of every next 6 years forever.
A few other thoughts:
Representative Conyers Jr. of Michigan was clearly lost in the whole process, being more concerned about losing control over the regulation of domain names to China than anything else.
At least one Representative was concerned that new gTLD’s could be set up outside the US, presumable in jurisdictions where the US could not seize domains.
While that Representative saw that as a negative, for domain owners if could clearly be a positive.
The attorney for Fox placed her argument against the new gTLD’s by giving the example of the use of a typo domain myfox2detroit.com (typo of MyfoxtwoDetroit.com) which is going to a porn site.
Of course she did not offer an explanation of why if the typo bothered Fox so much, why they hadn’t gone the WIPO route to get the domain which has been registered since 2006.
Another hearing was requested by several members before the June 20th ICANN board vote.
Representative Watts said that to her “job creation is crucial”, however Pritz failed to mention all the jobs that will be created when the new gTLD’s are permitted.
In general Prtiz was highly defensive trying to fight off questions rather than answering them with good information, as he could have.
In general IMHO, the ICANN community deserved better representation.
I have no idea why the chairman or the CEO of ICANN were not present instead of Mr. Pritz who in my opinion seems unprepared and greatly outmatched.
Bottom line?
I still expect ICANN to vote to approve the new gTLD process on June 20th in Singapore.
Kurt Pritz gave an answer that is not correct. People who plan to never buy new TLDs (like myself) care about what’s going on because some are trying to change .com/net/org based on what’s happening in proposed new TLDs. For example, some people are trying to put the URS into the .net contract renewal, as I tweeted today. Others want to eliminate price caps in new TLDs, and if that happened, it could be used by VeriSign as a precedent to jack up the fees on our .com domains.
If .shop can charge $10 million/yr for sex.shop, for example, allowed by the new “rules”, VeriSign would salivate at the prospect of trying the same in .com. They ultimately want .tv-style pricing in .com.
George
Unfortunately Kurt, as I said in the post gave out some bad info.
He even overstated the cost of a domain back in the NetSol Exclusive days.
His 200 new gTLD prediction was 40% of what ICANN’s own budget reflects and his statement on domainers feelings about new gTLD devaluing .com’s is clearly not held by a majority of domainers.
Grade:
Fail
Two years at Netsol was $100. Not $70.
He also gave out inaccurate domain name pricing for TODAY. He said $6/yr (wholesale cost, presumably). It has gone up several times since the days of $6/yr. Easy question for Mike….if domains had stayed at $6/yr, how much cash would you have saved?
I’m estimating it’s easily into the six figures, just for yourself, and obviously hundreds of millions of dollars across all .com registrants.
If .com had been tendered competitively, consumers would have saved BILLIONS of dollars (say $5/yr saving per domain, time 100 million domains, times multiple years). Instead, it’s all going to VeriSign. PIR and other oligopolistic registry operators have similar “sweetheart deals.”
Nick
When was it $100 for 2 years?
How likely it is that today’s hearing effect the Singapore June 20 date?
thx for the recap Mike.
Why wasn’t Rod Beckstrom there??? It’s shameful if If Mr Pritz is the best candidate ICANN could bring forward.
Dc
No beckstrom & his high salary were absent
From Wikipedia’s entry on Network Solutions:
“In 1995, the National Science Foundation gave Network Solutions authority to charge for domain name registrations. Network Solutions charged $100 for two years registration. The fee was imposed on all domains and 30% of this revenue went to the NSF to create an “Internet Intellectual Infrastructure Fund.” In 1997, a lawsuit was filed charging Network Solutions with antitrust violations with regards to domain names. The 30% of the registration fee that went to the NSF was ruled by a court to be an illegal tax. This led to a reduction in the domain name registration fee to $70.”
That gives the history fairly well (I’d have to go back and check the dates, so I don’t vouch for that). Before that, domains were free, of course.
“Domainers Are Against New gTLD’s Because They Will Lose The Value Of There Beachfront Property”
and must also buy the new-TLDs versions of all their best .com (etc.) domains
The Castello brothers remember a time when domains were $100.00 for two years, I believe.
Thanx for play-by-play of hearing to @ MHB and @ Kirikos, with your tweets – it IS entertaining!
George
Thanks for the info
Kurds statement was that registration fees were $80 & ICANN got them cut to $8 to $10
So clearly an incorrect statement, a inaccurate comparison between a two year registration to a one year, & of course as you point out ICANN had nothing to do with the reduction from $100 to $70
Of course he never mentioned “VeriSign” or answered why a domain registration should cost more than pennies
As long as they are holding hearings, maybe they should look into how the .XXX extension
came into existence…………….
Why didn’t Beckstrom think he needed to be present for this ??
I too remember paying $100 for 2 years at nsi in 97.
the 100 for 2 yrs is what kept me from getting a domain back then. $50 for a name was quite a bit, considering it previously was free. then with 100, it was too much committment for something that was a totally new concept. as an average user, there’s only so much you could do a domain name back then.
you wouldn’t just “try out” a domain name for $100 in 1995 us dollars.
why not one year?
in retrospect the only average users who got their money’s worth from these early monopoly prices were the “cybersquatters”. and it is the issues they raised that led to what became icann- there was need for dispute resolution.
it’s incredible how such recent history can be all but forgotten when people live on “internet time”.
it really wasn’t that long ago. internet use has a way of distorting time. but that’s not a licence to erase history.
“200 new gTLDs”
so, the pizza.com owner should buy soon …
pizza.NYC
pizza.Canon
pizza.Gay
pizza.eco
pizza.Music
etc. etc. etc. 200 times
I thought Kurt Pritz performed well. None of his slip ups were significant in the general scheme of things.
Also, The answer of “200 new gtld’s”, was in response to the question of “how many new gtld’s in the next 24 months?”. Given that no gTLD’s will even launch for another year, this could be a reasonable number.
Not to be confused with “how many new gtld’s in the first 24 months of launching new gtlds?”
Overall, it appeared as if the Committee has been sleeping and just woke up to recent ICANN developments. They last met on the issue two years ago. Where were they six months ago?
The train is moving and they’ve been left at the station.
“At least one Representative was concerned that new gTLD’s could be set up outside the US, presumable in jurisdictions where the US could not seize domains.”
No matter. Who cares about about ICANN or any local (foreign) laws or authority when a helicopter and some Navy Seals will suffice.
I spent 30K in late 1995 on two year regs…… $100 each. Made me mad I did not reg more in August 1995 when they were still free.
What horrible responses by the Kurt Pritz. He avoided answering why reg fees had not gone down and gave an unrelated answer to the question.
Also, why the heck are the leaders of ICANN always hiding? Where is the infamous hiding Rod Beckstrom? Is he too important to go to these meetings?
Instea, they send a lone, uninformed lawyer as a shield to REALLY answering these questions, I’m thinking.
This is getting sick.
This representative was Ms. Lofgren, she had also made some inteligent remarks on another hearing about domain seizures earlier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXK8hZYcc0Q) and overall made the impression to be the only one with a broader view.
However I found it strange that non-latin characters should be the main reason to introduce nTLDs…
Hi,
“Why do I have to pay $6,000, $8,000 or $10,000 for a domain because someone has camped on it?”
Someone should have told Rep Issa…For the same reason(s) that he cannot buy the ‘house next door to him’ for $5.00!
Some else OWNS it and it’s their property…and they can go ‘camping’ anytime they want, as long as they are not violating any “TM’s” etc…
___
As for more on the domain seizure’s …. Senator, Lofgren’s video is great!
Another Senator is fighting hard also:
May 04 2011 Update:
Senator Wyden Warns That Domain Seizures And COICA Undermine Internet Freedom
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110504/12103214143/senator-wyden-warns-that-domain-seizures-coica-undermine-internet-freedom.shtml
Best to all,
Dan
@Michael Marcovici “However I found it strange that non-latin characters should be the main reason to introduce nTLDs…”
What do you feel the main reason is?
One thing is clear and was clear to anyone listening to today’s hearing and dozen additional conversations on the various hearings/wg meetings etc and that one thing is that IDNs are a necessity, not a matter of choice.
Circumstances brought the issue of variants for existing idn gtlds (idn .com domains like Россия.com which were registered more then 10 years ago) together in the same process with completely new ASCII or not gtlds.
ICANN Needs to insure existing IDN gtlds proceed without further delays and that is in agreement with the views expressed because as much as the congressman today who was ‘very much interested’ to know of any bonuses tied to whichever program/icann employee with or without a date clause, Billions of non English speakers are waiting for what English speakers have for 25+ years. Domains in they’re own language.
http://www.idnforums.com/forums/180213-post19.html
Steve DelBianco:
When the gTLD expansion plan began to bog-down, it looked as if IDN domains would
be delayed, too. In reaction to governments’ concerns about this delay, ICANN created a ‘fast
track’ for IDNs – but only for country-code domains that are controlled by governments.
In November 2009, ICANN launched the “fast track” for Country Code domains (ccTLDs), but
generic domains (such as .com and .org ) were left on the slow track when it comes to serving
the half of the world’s population that doesn’t use our alphabet. Websites seeking to reach
non-Latin users now must use a country-code domain, where governments can enforce local
restrictions on domain ownership and site content.
For example, an Arabic user seeking to access YouTube.com in all-Arabic could only
choose from among Arabic versions of YouTube domain that were permitted by governments
who control Arabic country-code domains (youtube.sy in Syria; youtube.ly in Libya; etc.) It
would undoubtedly be more convenient and empowering for Arabic users to access the global,
generic address youtube.com — entirely in Arabic.
But ICANN’s ccTLD fast track gave government-controlled ccTLDs a two-year head start
against IDN versions of generic TLDs in terms of building market share of registrations and
mindshare of Internet users. While non-government applicants can propose IDN versions of
new gTLDs, they may find it hard to justify a million dollar investment to reach small linguistic
communities, particularly if ICANN’s fast-track let a ccTLD get there first.
In the upcoming round of new gTLDs, ICANN should actively promote and support
gTLDs for small linguistic communities – particularly IDN scripts. ICANN can start by expanding
its communications plan to educate global governments, businesses, and users about the ways
that new gTLDs can serve local language communities
Steven Metalitz:
By contrast, the Phase II report indicated, “differentiated offerings” seem much more
likely to provide public benefits, and to impose fewer external costs. This favorable balance may
be most striking for gTLDs that use non-Latin character scripts (sometimes referred to as 4
Internationalized Domain Names, or “top level IDNs”).
Anthony
Guess Beckstrom didn’t feel like he was needed today like he thought he didn’t need to vote on the .XXX issue
What you do want for $750K a year (plus benefits)
Mike–
See my new post at the ICA website, internetcommerce.org. I spoke with Kurt after the hearing and he conceded that his “beachfront property” statement was inaccurate.
Now that you watched the webcast, you can see what I have to deal with in DC 😉
Best, Philip
Phil
Good to hear.
I like Kurt a lot, as you know I have met him a bunch of times and think he is a good guy.
Don’t think he had his best day, but in all fairness I don’t know how I would do in front of a House Committee either.
Nice to see upon refection he realized it wasn’t an accurate statement.
lol. but then it’s so many people’s idiocy that makes this whole “industry” possible.
even the engineers, the only ones who can actually address the problems, are prone to act very foolishly.
the biggest problem facing the internet is a severe lack of _sensible_ people who also happen to understand computers and networking.
rep. issa’s comment is not so far off. rep. issa sees the problem. he’s right. something _is_ wrong. but, like most users, he has no idea how to implement the solution (technologically).
domain names could just as easily be free, as they once were. a registrant does not own a domain name. it’s an alias for a number. an alias that can be used on _any_ computer (not just on a registry’s servers). and no one owns numbers. we own hardware and some of us own networks.
in the case of domain names, what’s owned is a _registration_ that requires _annual fees_ to be maintained and which confers certain “rights”, e.g., the “right” to be listed in a zone file on one or more servers controlled by a registry. internet users may use those servers, or they might not. they might use the registrant’s chosen alias (domain name) as an alias for the registrant’s ip number or they might use their own alias for that number. it’s always been this way. dns is 100% optional.
let’s never forget that (the hubris of icann might be dangerous for all domainers).
Kurt was today’s designated pinata, plus he looked tired like he had just flown in the night before. Agree that he is a good guy doing a tough job under difficult circumstances.
What he said to me is that he really wished he had stated it differently and realized it had come out wrong. I’ve testified at Congressional hearings and there hasn’t been a single time I haven’t read the transcript afterwords and winced at several things I said. Before anyone is too critical they should try dealing with a Congressman who is interrupting your answer with another question while you’re under oath – it ain’t for sissies.
I did like the comment regarding the income vs. expenses..I mean were only really talking about 57 million dollars of proffit here…maybe the response should have “That’s not soooo.. much Mr. Congressmen since its really only about the cost of 12 good .coms!”
On a serious not..Will this meeting actually effect the rollout schedule?
Just wait until Dick Durbin gets his say !
Phil
“”Kurt was today’s designated pinata””
Yes but why
It gave me the impression that ICANN couldn’t care less what the Reps said or what happened at the hearing, otherwise Peter should have came.
Its his Board and the new gTLD program is being carried on this shoulders, besides he speaks very well and has the Swagga to carry the day.
next up for testimony under oath: google!
this is a fun house committee to watch. they should have a channel on youtube.
but maybe that’s all it is: just entertainment.
isn’t this a committee that was formed, disbanded and then reformed all in recent times to appease major copyright and trademark corporate interests (who support the democrats) who are made restless by the internet?
isn’t the senate where the rubber meets the road? shouldn’t we be focused on what the senate thinks about icann and domain names?
the senate is where the “rubber meets the road”.
I liked how “Easy” everyone thinks it will be to set up a TM clearing house and list that will be simple to manage and implement.
Also Fox claims that they would need to defensively register 300 marks in every conceivable TLD to the tune of 12MM. They don’t have those same marks in all the currently available TLDs. What about all the ccTLDs? Lame.
Very good post and replies! I will save it!
Regards Mike!
So what does this mean for the coming vote?
Looks like Fox did actually WIPO myfox2detroit.com.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0374
Kevin
Interesting, I wonder why they don’t have possession of the domain?
Administrative contact:
Technical contact:
Billing contact:
Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT
Domain Admin
yolaweb@mailftp.com
PO Box 94
Isle of Man, IM99 3NN U IM
Phone: +56.22997896
Fax: +56.22997896
Record dates:
Record created on: 2006-10-26 11:20:05 UTC
Record modified on: 2011-02-28 03:54:31 UTC
Record expires on: 2011-10-26 UTC
Nameservers:
ns2.dsredirection.com:
ns1.dsredirection.com:
Chip
There is already a trademark clearing house set up by WIPO that same folks that brought you the UDRP.
http://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/index.jsp
It already has 623,000 “brands” registered 98% of which none of us have ever heard of including the letter “F”
http://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/index.jsp
That’s the probably.
Trademark groups have gotten Congress and the media to buy into the notition that all “brands” should be treated equally.
Fact of the matter is that there is as much gaming the system in the trademark world as in the domain world
Mike is right. All one needs to do is look at the .eu sunrise, where many low quality TM registrations were used to game the system. Ironically, most of those who gamed it probably lost money, as .eu was pretty much a disaster.
@George Kirikos It may have ben a disaster for those that you say gamed the system (like me, who registered wonderful “same day” Benelux trademarks) but I don’t get why everyone says it has been a disaster. From whose perspective? Us gamers? The registry? The extension is being used and is what it is.
Nic
I think this story chats about what George is referring to:
http://www.hosterstats.com/blog/2011/05/01/eu-domains-drop-in-landrush-anniversary-dump/
Basically the companies that gamed the trademark system to get massive amounts of .Eu domain have wound up dropping them.
Fail
.eu was supposed to be a Eurocentric version of .com, a global rival. It failed. Individual ccTLDs within Europe are far more visible. The gamers lost, the registry didn’t really rake in much, and individual registrants don’t have anything of value (i.e. measured by traffic, or value of their domains). If you imagine a set of people “lining up” for domains, the line at the “.com window” is very long. There’s no one at the lineups for .eu.
The phrase “The extension is being used and is what it is.” can be applied to all the TLDs that have fared poorly, such as .jobs, .asia, .pro, .coop, and so on.
If you don’t have a measuring stick, no actual “standard” of success, you can always claim that something didn’t fail. Heck, that’s the game ICANN plays — no objective metric of the success of existing “new TLDs” like .info, .biz, etc. Read their press releases for things like the Fellowship Program. It’s always “it was a great success.” ICANN culture is one that is coddled, like a socially engineered school where either everyone gets an “A+” just for showing up, or there are no grades even assigned!
The most dangerous people in the ICANN ecosystem are those with rulers and measuring sticks. 🙂
“Billions of non English speakers are waiting for what English speakers have for 25+ years. Domains in they’re own language.”
The sooner they activate idn.idn for .com and .net the better. Letting the cctld’s get a 2 year jump on gtld idn’s has been very bad.
Lumping idn.idn for .com and .net with all of these other .whatever extensions is a huge dis-service to non-english speaking internet users.
Hurry up already with idn.idn. for .com and .net!!!
‘ domains never cost $80 for a registration they cost $70 ‘…
guess that doesnt include the ‘Halvarez’ mathematical adjustment of the era then does it?
Thanks to Phil and MHB for all the effort and time with our elected officials. Keep up the good work.
I think Rod Beckstrom not appearing was sending a purposeful message. After all, ICANN isn’t a lap dog of the US government, but just one important stakeholder. Some of the Congress members were shockingly ill informed but that didn’t seem to stop them from arrogant posturing and spouting nonsense. Shocking to learn of this “new” gTLD program. I think they are onto something with this China thing however. They should look into that.
Ranking member Watt didn’t see anything innovative with the gTLD program. “Maybe I’m just missing something here.” Yes, you are missing something. People being able to read, understand and easily remember domain names in their own language IS a clever and long overdue innovation.
When the TM lobby speaks they always like to mention Disney and Coca-cola TM’s. They don’t mention TM’s for obviously generic terms such as photo and hello. Oh well, have to go do some research on TM shenanigans. Seems those interests are powerful, well represented and will do well in the domain game.
The sad truth is that the entire gTLD idea will ultimately be a big, fat, hairy .FAIL.
Go ahead and argue the pro’s and con’s all you want. Bottom line is that a gTLD will never be able to compete with the visibility of a .COM and anyone who wastes his money on a non-.COM will soon learn that the hard way. (Think .COOP, .JOBS, .AERO, .MUSEUM, .MOBI).
As long as the Fortune 500 are all .COM (which they are), it will form an inpenetrable shield, impossible for other tlds to ever overcome.
Some will disagree and decide to invest anyways, but that ‘s ok. This is just basic domainer darwinism.
@George Kirikos
Fair enough. Good comments.
why are people who want idn’s waiting for icann?
the internet has been english-centric from the beginning: 7-bit. and other countries have learnt enough english in order to participate. that barrier to entry still perists today.
but the greatest active user base will soon be china. they are not all going to learn english to get the most out of the internet. yet people are still waiting for an american corporation controlling dns to shift the focus away from their native language, english? c’mon. not going to happen. because it means loss of control.
why wait? if you want idn’s then set up idn-friendly dns outside the usa and they will come from all over asia. europe will follow with their own versions.
it’s only a matter of time before china runs its own dns. it’s simply a matter of vision. eventually they are going to have it.
if there’s demand for idn, then *meet* it.
I don’t see the point in launching idn.com, there are a lot of languages to convert this to and with .com’s already squatted all over the place it would be unfair to implement a straight grandfathering scheme for these names, and impossible to TM Sunrise without the grandfather first (??). Governments already have the ability to monitor internet usage locally so the idea of them being in control of their idn.idn as a means of oppression is moot. What it does allow is for monitoring of the local internet user’s experience and to ensure that e-commerce sites are catering for the local market correctly. The last thing a government wants is for a cctld idn to be launched in its native language and then be overrun by pay per click sites. Leave it in their hands.
RE: cost of a .com, none of the fortune 500 companies care if a .com costs $6, they already pay over the odds in management fees with their registrar. Why does ICANN have to go before the house? It’s full of posturing morons.
The only notable “beachfront property” on this planet ends with a .com – so many brand new Internet geniuses are nothing more than frustrated residents with “beachfront property” on Mars – at best dried up oceans.
many intresting teams in your site