homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.11.16
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Domain Names
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & webwork

Domain Names Forum

This 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >     
Tiered / Variable Pricing By Domain Not Forbidden in New .BIZ/INFO/ORG contracts
Vint Cerf/ICANN confirm member's interpretation of new proposed contracts
GeorgeK




msg:3059494
 10:53 pm on Aug 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

Vint Cerf/ICANN confirm my interpretation of .biz/info/org proposed contracts -- tiered/differential domain pricing would not be forbidden

Hi folks,

I finally got the "official" word from Vint Cerf of ICANN, "on the record", who confirmed that my interpretation is correct, that differential/tiered pricing on a domain-by-domain basis would not be forbidden under the .biz/info/org proposed contracts. This means that the registries could charge $100,000/yr for sex.biz, $25,000/yr for movies.org, etc. if they wanted to -- it would not be forbidden the way the proposed contracts are currently written. This would represent a powerful pricing weapon for registries, and a fundamental shift in possible domain name pricing, that could lead them to emulate .tv-style price schedules.

One can read the proposed contracts at:

[icann.org...]

Vint said it would be "suicide" for a registry to do it, because there'd be the 6-month notice period to raise prices and the ability for registrants to renew for up to 10 years at "old prices", that supposedly "protects" registrants. Personally, as a business, my time horizon is a lot longer than 10 years. I wonder if Vint felt introducing "SiteFinder" was suicide, too....history has shown registries will do whatever they can get away with, in order to maximize profits long-term and short-term.

I don't think Vint understands the business at all, to think that a lag of 10 years will deter a profit-maximizing registry, esp. VeriSign should it try to match this contractual precedent in .com (and history shows VeriSign will always try to get "more", especially if "another registry" is able to do something -- they used that tactic in .com renegotiations, saying various terms were already in the .net contract, for instance).

Just to show one possible future, if PIR feels pressure or has a desire to clean up porn from .org, it could announce that <snip/sex domain>.org (check its Alexa ranking) will have its renewal price be $1 billion/yr. If it takes 10 years to do it, many would wait, and it would not be considered "suicide" for PIR. Who will stand against that as "we're protecting the internet and children from porn", PIR might argue? Leaving this temptation in the contract will likely become a slippery slope, in my opinion, leading to profit-maximizing behaviour by registries to emulate .tv. Acting in the interests of their shareholders, registries are *compelled* to maximize profits.

It can be used as a political weapon, too. If a registry disagreed with the views or content of a website for which they were the registry, they could raise the renewal price to $100 billion/yr. 10 years later, that website would not exist at that address, and nothing in the contracts would forbid this pricing behaviour. More likely, it would be used for profit maximization (if Google.com is a $100 billion company, "certainly they are benefiting from their domain name, and can afford our $1 billion/yr renewal fee" one might say -- see the net neutrality debate and tiered pricing for websites that phone and cable companies are pushing....). How far away is tiered domain name pricing?

ICANN would be opening up a Pandora's Box through this contractual loophole, to not forbid .tv style pricing. The mistake would not be able to be corrected, as the contracts explicitly say that Consensus Policies do not apply to pricing issues. Since presumptive renewal exists in these new deals, the contracts are essentially going to live with ICANN forever, if approved.

If this pricing power eventually got extended to .com, nothing would prevent the renewal fee for Yahoo.com, GoDaddy.com, Google.com, Tucows.com, Business.com, Sex.com or any other domain in a registry with similar terms to reach $1 billion per year, or any other price that VeriSign or other registry operators wanted to maximize its profits (net-neutrality debate is similar, for bandwidth pricing to websites). You can imagine my VeriSignSucks.com won't last longer than 10 years, if VeriSign had the power to raise the renewal fee to $1 billion/year. :)

I believe that it is very important that this loophole be closed, in order to not create the precedent that VeriSign could later exploit for .com, and to protect registrants of .biz/org/info. If it is "suicide", as Vint suggested, then surely a registry that would supposedly never use the power would agree to remove the temptation by adding an appropriate term to the contract. A registry not willing to add that term....well, you know what they might be tempted to do later. If your business horizon is the next quarter, this won't impact you. If it's beyond 10 years, it could impact you. Can you live with that uncertainty?

ICANN went even further than the .com proposed settlement with VeriSign, and gives these registries removal of price caps "following extensive consideration and discussion" (I don't recall any such public discussion or consultation with the ICANN community and stakeholders). However, take note of ICANN's statements in the CFIT litigation regarding pricing caps on May 26th:

[icann.org...]
[icann.org...]

"in a single supplier market, price caps are, if anything, procompetitive (Mot. at 13-14);" [page 1 of the document, line 13, page 6 of all 15]

"Nowhere does CFIT address the fact that, at this point in time, all that ICANN and VeriSign have done is propose future price **limits** for .COM domain names, which cannot be implemented until the DOC approves the .COM Extension. (Mot. at 20-22.) And, as ICANN explained in its opening brief, price caps in a single supplier market are considered pro-competitive. (Mot. at 13-14.)" [page 8 of the document, line 14, page 13 of all 15]

So, you have ICANN lawyers telling the court that price caps are pro-competitive in these single supplier markets (i.e. where registries are the single suppliers for each TLD). Indeed, it is part of ICANN's mission to promote competition.

Yet, we have ICANN removing all price caps entirely on .biz, .info and .org with these proposed new contracts. Something is amiss. Wouldn't that contradict everything their lawyers said to the court?

Feel free to spread the word on the mailing lists or media, and contact Vint (vint AT google.com) or John Jeffrey (jeffrey AT icann.org) or other ICANN staffers if you want to confirm things and voice your concerns. Time is of the essence, as the public comment period ends next Monday. Registrants DO NOT know what is coming (the public comment board is almost empty), as it's the summer holidays! (typical ICANN tactic, introduce 500+ page contracts for public comment when everyone is on holiday)

Public comments can be sent using the addresses at:

[icann.org...]

(be sure to send to all 3 email addresses for all 3 contracts, and also click the link in the email ICANN will send you to authenticate your email address, otherwise your comment doesn't get received)

There are a lot of other reasons to be opposed to the proposed contracts, such as the presumptive renewal, the ability to sell traffic data, the removal of price caps, etc. I will be writing a longer document soon, but wanted to give everyone a heads-up, so that you can take appropriate action on your own now, and corroborate things independently with Vint Cerf, John Jeffrey or other ICANN people.

These are fundamentally flawed contracts, and should not be approved by ICANN. The precedents these contracts would create are ominous, even worse then the .com proposed settlement agreement (that the DoC has yet to approve). Why is ICANN even renegotiating these registry agreements, when the existing terms don't expire for several years in some cases, and the GNSO PDP process for registry services is ongoing?

Sincerely,

George

[edited by: Webwork at 1:49 am (utc) on Aug. 25, 2006]

 

Leosghost




msg:3062179
 4:28 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hell, even if they tried, the registrars will just compete with each other all the way back down to your existing payment to keep your business! Be a bit like getting Car Insurance all over again :)

Nave ..

And you've missed the point ..if the monopoly registry governing .org increases it's price on your .org domain renewal to your registrar..it will be passed onto you ..and no other registrar will be able to compete on price as they will have to pay the monopoly registry the same price ..

godaddy isn't going to take a $10,000.oo loss on adomain that they have to give the .org registry 10,010.oo for at renewal ..just to try to compete with netsol ..they'd be competeing their way into fastrack bankruptcy ..

monopolies dont do competition ...and public outcry doesnt phase them at all ..they are too busy hearing the sound of the money to hear the shouts ..

registrys do not compete with each other ..they cannot ..they have exclusive monopoly rights to their own suffixes ..

To those who think that "it's Ok ..it could be challenged in the courts "...what would the domain owner be doing for revenue whilst it was being challenged and stalled by the registrys deep pockets and their lawyers in the courts?..how many people who are or were "in the right" just had to give up and let the big guys win in the courts due to lack of funds to continue ..?

Alternative handling of DNS ..pipedreams ;-))
..every ISP worldwide would have to agree to use it to make it an alternative ..many of these and the carriers are owned or part owned by those companies who sit on the board of the ICANN ..the attempt here is to use the ICANN ( operating away from genuine public scrutiny ) to try to steal and hi-jack what couldn't be gotten by other ( easier to see in the light of day ) methods ..

Leosghost




msg:3062181
 4:37 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

This would, of course mean relying totally on the search engines to find the required content, and send visitors.

"vint cerf" may have an interest in that becoming the future

the man who thinks that this is OK ..works for Google

[google.com...]

Vint Cerf. Vinton G. Cerf Vice President & Chief Internet Evangelist. Vinton G. Cerf is vice president and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. .

..conflict of interest ..anyone ..

( do no evil ..get the ICANN to do it for you ..you just need to get your guy on the board ..you can come up smelling of roses ..while they come out the bad guys )

[edited by: Leosghost at 4:40 pm (utc) on Aug. 27, 2006]

ccDan




msg:3062334
 8:26 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Leosghost writes:
Vint Cerf. Vinton G. Cerf Vice President & Chief Internet Evangelist. Vinton G. Cerf is vice president and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. .

..conflict of interest ..anyone ..

Wasn't there a recent WebmasterWorld thread discussing Google possibly getting into domain name registration services?

Leosghost




msg:3062336
 8:30 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

they already are in ..they are a registrar and have been for some time now ..cosy ..huh

Simsi




msg:3062392
 9:29 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Nave ..

And you've missed the point ..if the monopoly registry governing .org increases it's price on your .org domain renewal to your registrar..it will be passed onto you ..and no other registrar will be able to compete on price as they will have to pay the monopoly registry the same price ..

Can't argue that. It's a facet of my character :-)

Still - this won't happen anyway IMO. Might get an increase in registration prices, but retroactive applications of terms on renewals? Can't see it sticking.

What would happen in the property rental market if a landlord upped the rent for a guy from $1k a month to $100k a month on renewal and the tennant took it to court? Must have been a few cases of this before now.

[edited by: Simsi at 9:35 pm (utc) on Aug. 27, 2006]

Leosghost




msg:3062409
 9:54 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

What would happen in the property rental market if a landlord upped the rent for a guy from $1k a month to $100k a month on renewal and the tennant took it to court?

you forgot about if the landlord also changed the locks when the tenant said no to the price hike ..the recently evicted homeless have a hard time fighting court cases ..especially if the landlord has already let the place to somene else at 1000 times the rent ..by the time it gets to court ..

how do you not understand this ..the day you refuse the increase is the day you lose your domain next renewal date ..you'll get six months notification of the impending price hike ..and their lawyers will stall to avoid the court hearing ( presuming you can afford to pay your lawyer and are lucky enough to get a judge who undestands the innerweb tubes ..and that you speak english and are based in the US west coast with your domain )..

So a year later when it gets to court ..if you had the money etc for your lawyers ..you start a process where if you are lucky five years later you might win ..

meantime you lived on what ..? ..someone else had your domain during all that time ..

you want to know how the courts work in real life ..try reasearching microsoft and antitrust ..or any one of a thousand bigbusiness V smallguy cases ..

wake up ..

[edited by: Leosghost at 9:57 pm (utc) on Aug. 27, 2006]

MamaDawg




msg:3062559
 1:42 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

I just saw the first post in support of the proposed contracts ...

From VeriSign!

Leosghost




msg:3062585
 2:20 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

verisign's comment is at best creative with the truth ..as are many past statements from them ..

The agreement
closely mirrors the model registry agreements that ICANN has already
used or proposed for .com, .info, .mobi, .net, and .org.

I added my bold in order to to draw attention to their omission of the fact that the proposed .com agreement is being challenged at law ..and therefore no actuall use is being made of any registry agreement or model with this "uncapped" renewal fee feature ..

I presume verisign's main motive in posting this was in order to enable ICANN to claim that there were differences of opinion ( from a minority of one ..highly partisan registry ..likely to try to use this for leverage and massive gain ) and that thus the opposition was not total ..

[edited by: Leosghost at 2:21 am (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

ccDan




msg:3062621
 3:21 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Leosghost writes:
I added my bold in order to to draw attention to their omission of the fact that the proposed .com agreement is being challenged at law...

And that .info and .org are the two other agreements being proposed at this time!

ccDan




msg:3062623
 3:33 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

I hope someone more familiar with "legalese" can respond to this.

Do the .net and/or .mobi agreements have presumptive renewal?

Do the .net and/or .mobi agreements allow for tiered/variable pricing by domain?

As near as I can tell, the .net agreement does not allow for tiered/variable pricing. Not sure about .mobi.

Nor do I see any provisions covering use of traffic data.

[icann.org ]

WolfLover




msg:3062637
 3:53 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Public comments must be immediately sent, using the addresses at:
[icann.org...]

August 28th is the last date that ICANN will be taking public comments.

Send your comments to all 3 email addresses listed at the above link, for all 3 contracts.

You will need to click on a link in an email ICANN will send to authenticate your email. If you fail to authenticate your email your comments will not be included in the the record.

Webwork, how long does it usually take the authentication email from ICANN? I just sent my objection to the proposed changes to all three emails as you said. I just do not want to wait till it's too late to do the authentication. It's been about 15 minutes, so not sure if it takes awhile or what?

Thanks to everyone for letting us know about this. I did not read this thread until a little while ago.

GeorgeK




msg:3062638
 3:54 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

There is at least 1 supporter of the proposed .biz/info/org contracts....Chuck Gomes of VeriSign! See:

[forum.icann.org...]

Ensuring the continued security and stability of its infrastructure is
critical to the continued growth of the Internet. That is why VeriSign
supports the proposed new registry agreement for .biz. The agreement
closely mirrors the model registry agreements that ICANN has already
used or proposed for .com, .info, .mobi, .net, and .org.

These agreements strike the important balance between protecting
Internet users and providing registry operators with the incentives and
flexibility to continue to invest in the Internet infrastructure. They
also create a level playing field for all the registries.

He posted similar comments for .info and .org.

It would not surprise me if VeriSign is salivating at the prospect of these contracts being approved, so that it creates a precedent for future .com/net renegotiations.

[edited by: Webwork at 12:22 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] Highlighted & Note: Submittor identity subject to denial or confirmation. [/edit]
[/edit][/1]

ccDan




msg:3062639
 3:57 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

WolfLover, it took about an hour before I received the authentication eMails from ICANN.

[edited by: ccDan at 4:14 am (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

ccDan




msg:3062661
 4:13 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Leosghost writes:
I presume verisign's main motive in posting this was in order to enable ICANN to claim that there were differences of opinion ( from a minority of one ..highly partisan registry ..likely to try to use this for leverage and massive gain ) and that thus the opposition was not total ..

So far, I see that two registrars have posted (GoDaddy and NetworkSolutions). Both opposed the new agreements.

The rest appear to be domain name registrants. So far, all that I have read have been opposed.

The only post in support that I've seen thus far is VeriSign, a registry. Naturally, the registries are going to support these agreements, since they overwhelmingly favor the registries over the registrants.

I hope that we'll see a flood more posts in opposition come Monday morning, when people who don't get online on the weekends check WebmasterWorld when they get in the office.

I am concerned, though, that the registries, like VeriSign, might try to get people--perhaps their employees or families--to do likewise Monday, with a flood of messages in support of the new agreements.

We should all try to get the word out to as many people as possible to get them to post their comments before 5:00 p.m. PDT on Monday.

ccDan




msg:3062757
 6:33 am on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

A-HA!

I knew this would be relevant, but wasn't sure before how to fit it in: Domain Name Appraisals.

Many of you are already familiar with this thread:

[webmasterworld.com ]

I know that I have seen in the past some domain names that were "appraised" at some ridiculously high amounts.

Imagine that your domain will be appraised by the registry in similar fashion to some of the appraisals in that thread. Imagine they figure that 10% of the appraised value is a reasonable renewal fee.

So, your domain name gets "appraised" at $15,000. (I am sure they will come up with some algorithm to make the calculations so that they can argue they are not being discriminatory or predatory. "The computer appraised Google.com at $1,000,000,000.00; we apply the same algorithm equally to all domains....")

So, your renewal fee is $1,500.

Computer automated = fair. Right?

Leosghost




msg:3062947
 12:01 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

to anyone who has yet to leave their comments at the ICANN [icann.org] or has done so and has not yet seen them appear there [forum.icann.org] ..
some of us have found that depending on the mail accounts one uses to send ..the messages do not get "bounced" ..but appear to be "blackholed" ..and so you do not get within a very short time ( typically less than 5 minutes ) the autoresponder email message from the ICANN that includes the link ( you must click on it and go there ) to their page requiring you to click the "yes" button to confirm that you did send the message ..

if you dont go there and "confirm" ..your message will not show up and will not be counted ..

using either gmail or yahoo accounts seems to get through 100% of the time and the autoresponder messages with the all important link .. come back to the gmail of the yahoo account almost instantly ..like within 5 minutes :-)..

not saying i agree with their tech policy or whatever it is ..just saying that if thats what it takes to get through etc ..)

so use if possible one of those accounts ( if you haven't heard from the ICANN within say 30 minutes with the "link" ) ..

the fact that you may have trouble sending to them from another email account doesnt mean that the server or your domain or whatever is on any blacklist ..just that the ICANN email system seems to prefer some account servers over others ..( they probably like the PIR and ALIAS and verisigns servers even more ..based upon their ideas of whose opionions count and who should be told about changes ) ..remember post / email the ICANN one time each for .biz and.org and .info ..all are important ..each of the three posts will count in the end ..

BTW ..I know that the above is "email for newbies" ..but some members and lurkers here are newbies ..we still need to help them make their voices count ..especially now ..on this matter ..

( and anyway sometimes it says up in the top right here "making better webmasters one at a time or somesuch" ..) ..reason why many of us are here ..to try to help out .

[edited by: Leosghost at 12:06 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

eddy22




msg:3062978
 12:46 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

So probably the next thing could be the lifting of price controls for the .US, .UK, .DE and other cc tld domains?

MamaDawg




msg:3062984
 1:00 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Followed closely by .com and .net, judging from VeriSign's comment.

It's frustrating to think that people may be tuning out this whole discussion, thinking it doesn't affect them -

It does.

[edited by: MamaDawg at 1:00 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

Leosghost




msg:3063168
 3:38 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

It would appear from the ICANN site that people are picking up on this ..anyone have a phone number for Oprah or Jay Leno ..anyone have senator in the family ..nows the time ..

ccDan




msg:3063182
 3:51 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

If your Senator is FOR network neutrality, there's a good chance they might speak out against ICANN's proposed .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG agreements. As has been previously mentioned, there is a certain degree of similarity between what the broadband operators want to do and what ICANN is trying to do.

Check your Senator's stand:
[savetheinternet.com ]

Hurry!

<Added: List of Senator's addresses: [senate.gov...] >

[edited by: Webwork at 4:10 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] Clarification [/edit]
[/edit][/1]

Leosghost




msg:3063215
 4:06 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

hmm ...beside the various senators inboxes... the blog and the momentum tracker links look like usefull places to speak out ..not to mention the myspace area ..
not being a US citizen myself I'll leave you guys to be inventive ..and urgent ..

WolfLover




msg:3063318
 5:09 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ok, I've called and emailed both of my Senators in Florida. I've also emailed my congressman. I've sent some emails to friends, etc. and asked them to post that they OPPOSE the proposed changes to the ICANN agreement.

I urge everyone to take action NOW. This could put all of us small business people out of business and in the unemployment line. The internet as we know it will dissolve with only the biggest players online controlling everything. Any small business person who manages to be able to pay for their renewal will HAVE to make it up in higher prices to their customers which in turn hurts EVERYONE.

We are running out of time. You only have until 5pm Pacific Time to place your post. Here is the link again:

[icann.org ]

PLEASE post and then you MUST reply to the Authentication Email ICANN sends you or your post will NOT count!

This affects all of us.

Below is where you can go to get your House Of Representatives name and contact information:

[house.gov ]

Here are more urls where you can write to those in power:

[congress.org ]

[congressmerge.com ]

WolfLover




msg:3063352
 5:37 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

I also went to PRWeb to do a press release, however, unfortunately it takes 2 days to get it released, which does no good.

Anyone know where we can do press releases that go out immediately? If so, please post them so we can get this message out to others.

ccDan




msg:3063360
 5:42 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

So far, and without actually counting, it appears as though more comments have been posted today then the rest of the month combined.

What concerns me though is that most writers are writing their messages as though tiered/variable by domain pricing is an explicit part of the new agreements. It is allowable under the new agreements, which is the cause for concern.

I hope the differing semantics don't cause ICANN to dismiss those comments as "they don't know what they're talking about!"

WolfLover




msg:3063361
 5:44 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

So far, and without actually counting, it appears as though more comments have been posted today then the rest of the month combined.
What concerns me though is that most writers are writing their messages as though tiered/variable by domain pricing is an explicit part of the new agreements. It is allowable under the new agreements, which is the cause for concern.

I hope the differing semantics don't cause ICANN to dismiss those comments as "they don't know what they're talking about!"

ccDan, how about writing up a quick text of what they should include in the opposal post to make it look better to ICANN or anyone else reading it.

ccDan




msg:3063376
 6:06 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

WolfLover, the proposed agreements will not "prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services."

That means (and someone please correct me if I am in error!) that there are no price controls whatsoever. Registries are free to raise prices as they see fit without limitation. They can use any manner of pricing they choose, including tiered or variable by domain pricing.

So, I think the appropriate way to write a letter in opposition would be to say that:

* you oppose language which allows registries to set pricing on a variable by domain basis, and/or
* you oppose language which allows registries to set pricing without limitation

And so on. Just don't write it as if you think tiered/variable by domain pricing is part of the agreement itself. It is permissible under the agreements, but not explicitly part of the agreements. Get your opposition to tiered/variable by domain pricing in there, but don't write it as if you think it is an explicit part of the agreement.

Use your own words. If you look at some of the messages, you'll see ones that mentioned flawed language and loopholes and elimination of price caps. I think those are a good sample to follow.

But, use your own words. I think a personally written letter will carry more weight than using a generic form letter that many posters seem to be using.

Most important, though, is to get your message in before the deadline. In that case, a form letter is better than no letter at all!

[edited by: ccDan at 6:09 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

ccDan




msg:3063384
 6:13 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

WolfLover writes:
Anyone know where we can do press releases that go out immediately? If so, please post them so we can get this message out to others.

How about sending to some of the major blogging sites, like the Daily Kos?

The SaveTheInternet blogroll might be a good place to look for bloggers who might also oppose ICANN's proposed new agreements.

ccDan




msg:3063446
 7:08 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

This is interesting...

Vint Cerf supports Network Neutrality.

So, it's bad for a broadband duopoly to charge more money to certain web sites, but good for the registry monopolies to charge more money to certain web sites?

Read Vint Cerf's comments on Network Neutrality here:
[googleblog.blogspot.com ]

[edited by: ccDan at 7:15 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

GeorgeK




msg:3063493
 7:41 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, the registries didn't leave Chuck Gomes of VeriSign twisting in the wind as the only public supporter of the proposed .biz/info/org contracts.

We now have the 2nd supporter, Brian Johnson of the .jobs registry!

[forum.icann.org...]

ccDan




msg:3063498
 7:44 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

Looks like Brian Johnson and Chuck Gomes share the same ghostwriter! ;)

[edited by: ccDan at 7:45 pm (utc) on Aug. 28, 2006]

ccDan




msg:3063499
 7:46 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)

If writing a letter, and you are a domain name registrant with a domain in the .BIZ, .INFO or .ORG gTLDs, it would likely be helpful if you mention that!

This 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Domain Names
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved