Whether or not ICANN put the wording in delibrately is moot. It could very easily have been the work product of a committee compromising on a variety of different issues. The fact is that it is there and if experts in the field
can interpret it as “variable pricing”, then it will not take others very long to exploit the issue to our detriment. Even though I haven’t read the USPTO regulations entirely, I am willing to wager a big chunk of cash that there is nothing there that can be interpreted as “variable pricing”. Maybe ICANN can pull some more concise language from these regs.

What Leosghost missed is that Ken only brought this to the community’s attention and asked that we become informed and TAKE A STAND. For that, Ken, thank you for your time and interest in the rest of us. I’m sorry that I didn’t see the email until it was too late.

ICANN now knows that people are actually reading what they write and that they cannot act in a vacuum or in their own interests.

If ICANN moves forward our next step should be to pepper Congress with demands that they break the monopoly.

Your advice on how to apply correct leverage is once again masterful and precise.

Thanks!

I see a headline soon:

ICANN MURDERED BY GOOGLE.

I reckon Google should start a .goovid top level domain (with the Govt’s approval), that is exclusively for video.

They would clean up, and would also destroy the thieving ICANN.

Then they should start a domain registry called .googdom and put ICANN out of business altogether …

ICANN ’s proposed new domain renewal gouging system ‘DIFFERENT PRICING’ will have the same effect as if the Trademarks office (USPTO) suddenly decided to start charging the CocaCola company $100 million each year to maintain the registration of their famous brand name – but only charged me $10 each year for my unknown one.

Total gouging madness. Like Godzilla, ICANN is coming.

Better watch out.

Jonathan
PS. I have told my entire list too Ken since hearing about it from you.

http://viralalchemy.com

Here’s the problem: No matter how much you spend developing your domain name, you don’t own it. When renewal comes up, if you fail to pay the new fee, whatever it might be, the domain is taken back.

Can registrars take advantage of this by jacking up prices for developed domains, or worse yet put them up for public auction.

Currently, no.

There is language in the current proposal that is vague enought that seems to make such a change possible.

I’m a little amazed at the naivete of people who “trust” ICANN or who assume that nothing this outrageous would ever be attempted.

Lots of my serious-as-death domain name expert colleagues who’ve been in the game a long time were concerned enough to ask me to personally put an effort into generating letters of opposition.

If you read the comments on the ICANN site (see the link in my original post on this subject) you can read people who are much more familiar with the nuances of the deal.

My bottom line: The domain name pricing regulations works. You want to change it to something “variable” or “two-tiered?” My answer is “NO!” It has countless downsides and no upside that I can see.

If ICANN needs more money, it can hold some bake sales and the registrars are doing just fine.

If it is the former that is a very bad thing, if it is the latter then it is still a bad thing and very worrying.
Regards Brian Gable

http://www.laundry-and-dishwasher-info.com

To me this story was about three things:

1. Don’t be passive

If a government-mandated monopoly/bureacracy starts making vague noises about changing a critical system that isn’t broken and it even *looks* like it has the potential to go against small business – scream, don’t whisper about it.

2. Don’t give up because it’s “too late”

If there’s a pulse, there’s still a chance for life.

It would have been very easy for me on Monday morning when I had 10,000 other things to do, to say “it’s too late, everyone who cares about this has already posted, why should I burn a day on it?”

3. Social networking sites are powerful

Combinging classic direct response with the new social networking web sites is a very powerful method for getting the word out – if it’s done respectfully.

The Digg community is very sharp and knowledgeable.

Had what I posted been lacking in merit or full of bull, instead of getting thumbs up, my post would have been shot down. Instead Digg readers propelled my article to the home page with the resulting effect of radically pumping up the volume of letters to ICANN.

As I disclosed in my report on this event, some Digg members felt my original article about the proposed changed overstated the case. And you know what? I can see their point to a degree.

I wish that I had had days and weeks instead of a few hours to go from 0 to 60 on the subject and take action.

On the other hand, many who’ve criticized my position, clearly don’t have full possessions of the facts. They don’t even seem to be interested in the facts.

It’s hard to argue with people who won’t bother to look at the evidence.

I’ve already carefully laid out a clear research path for anyone who wants to prove or disprove my assetion that the readers of this blog and the Digg community were the ones who n Monday showed ICANN that the world is watching on this issue.

If anyone wants to waste more time claiming that my narrative is false and therefore self-serving, please look at the stats first and then show me how the stats support your version of reality.

But write me personally.

This blog is about getting things done. Not splitting hairs and finding creative ways to shoot individuals down and discourage initiative.