The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) has just put up a post that all domainers need to take notice of and therefore I’m republishing it on theDomains.
The Post is written by Phil Corwin of the ICA which talks about a topic we have been warning about for a couple of years now, which is the existing Registries may want the same terms and conditions in their contract the new gTLD operators will be getting including the right to price domains differently (variably pricing) and there is also a movement to apply the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) to existing extensions like .com and .net.
Here is the post:
“”On June 1st an ICANN comment period ended in regard to the process for terminating registry/registrar separation at incumbent gTLDs like .Com and .Net (announcement at http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-02may11-en.htm).
“ICANN’s Board has decided that any new gTLDs will not be subject to such a separation requirement and will rely on other restrictions as well as national competition authorities to curb any potential harms. So this proposal is designed to “level the playing field” for incumbent gTLDs.”
“The process proposed by ICANN would give the incumbents a choice of accepting the entirety of the new gTLD registry contract, or negotiating changes in their existing contract with ICANN and then subjecting those proposed changes to public comment. ICA presumed that incumbent registry operators would choose the second route.”
“However, of the four comments filed on this issue, only the Registries Stakeholder Group proposed technical adjustments. The other three parties – Momentous, AusRegistry, and the International Trademark Association (INTA) – took an “all or nothing” position to the effect that any incumbent gTLD wishing to affiliate with a registrar must adopt the entirety of the registry contract for new gTLDs to prevent “cherry picking” of favorable terms. (Comments at http://forum.icann.org/lists/cross-ownership-existing-registries/ )
We have no idea whether VeriSign plans to seek to integrate with an ICANN-accredited registrar, or if a major registrar might propose to merge with or acquire VeriSign.
But if the “all or nothing” position were applied to .Com it would mean:
· The end of any pricing constraints
· The imposition of all the new gTLD “rights protections”, including Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
We anticipate that some business interests holding large portfolios of defensively registered or UDRP-acquired domains would resist the termination of price controls – but might simultaneously support imposition of new gTLD rights protections as a condition of integration.
ICANN’s Board is slated to consider this matter at its June 20th meeting at which the main topic will be whether to approve the overall new gTLD program. It’s likely that the conditions for incumbent gTLD integration will not be settled with finality at that meeting and that this issue will persist for quite some time.
The ICA will vigorously articulate the interests of domain investors on this matter in order to protect the value and security of domain portfolios consisting primarily of incumbent gTLDs. These portfolios were acquired with the understanding that they would require compliance with the UDRP and not new and untested “rights protections”, and that incumbent gTLD domains are qualitatively different than those of any proposed new gTLD and therefore should be protected against unreasonable price increases.”
More of the same interests trying to steal money from us.
would vrsn actually want to adopt urs?
what about their proposal a while ago to bring back a shorter term registration, similar to tasting?
seems like they miss the tasting (testing) days as this probably produced more (permament) registrations overall, and thereby more income.
urs may be good in the eyes of the inta, adr providers, lawyers and some companies who have recurring problems with cybersquatters, but is it actually good for registries and registrars?
urs as inta would like it seems like a vehicle for intimidation. will the same customers who register increasing numbers of domain names with relative anonymity and risk today continue to do so under the potential threat of losing their website, their reg fee and potentially hundreds of dollars to an overzealous trademark registrant?
we should expect that despite our best intentions, if adopted, the urs will be gamed just like other systems have been in the past. what will be the result?
On a similar idea regarding the impact of new gtlds on existing extensions. Do you all think that restrictions that are in force on such domains as .Pro or .Travel will still be required given the fact that new extensions most likely won’t be required to have them.
Doesn’t seem fair that existing extensions that have been along for years should be undercut like this unless or at least have the option of playing on a level field.