[At-Large] - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog

bzs at theworld.com bzs at theworld.com
Sun Jun 30 03:46:49 UTC 2019

On June 29, 2019 at 12:26 roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com (Roberto Gaetano) wrote:
 > Can we try to think out of the box?

Can we try to think inside the box? I'm serious, outside the box is
easy, just freely associate about how the world should work.

 > Can we propose a price cap that differentiates between existing registrations and new registrations?

That sounds very reasonable.

 > Can we propose to analyse what means “use” and “not use” and instead of a flat increase in fees have a diversified fee depending on use (non-use being subject to a higher fee, obviously)?

You mean use it or lose it, like a trademark?

I would suggest that at this point every fiber of ICANN's and its
contractees' being would resist that.

 > Can we propose to set limits for the secondary market, like for instance a limit for the sell/buy ratio?

Same basic problem though worse. Now you're not even talking about
contractees but private individuals who acquired a domain and seek to
sell it.

 > Can we propose that the domain fee not be fixed but related to the market value of the domain?

We basically have that now, "platinum domains".

I suppose in theory one could tie a renewal fee to a last sale price
but it would probably just invite a lot of cheating.

And if not the last sale price how does one determine the market value?

 > I know that most, if not all, the examples I am giving will be proven (or supposed) impracticable, ...

You're welcome!

 > ...but that should not stop us from brainstorming on what could be a common ALAC position even outside the straightjacket of the perceived limitations that ICANN is providing us - I am sure that others will have better ideas to throw in for discussion in search of a common proposal instead of the basically “well, we really don’t know” that is the only possible outcome if we only stand in contraposition of eachother.
 > In my opinion, for too long we have been held hostage of an externally defined picket fence. It is time that we start thinking whether there is something that has to be said and done for internet users in their own interest, and not just as a reaction to the topics that are of interest to other parts of the multi-stakeholder community.
 > And I have the belief (illusion?) that the ATLAS III meeting in few months can be the cornerstone for building a strategy for ALAC that is fully focused on Internet users.
 > Cheers,
 > Roberto

There are so many horses so far out of the barn...

For example, do TLDs mean anything, other than a very few exceptions
who have mostly self-imposed some meaning or requirement before
letting someone register a domain?

I suppose .NGO/.ONG are examples and hey that's PIR!

Does .ORG mean anything, for example?

Or could one say if they raised the price to US$1M per registration
who cares? Go find a domain in .RODEO or .PORN.

Perhaps approving 1,000 nTLDs has sealed the market-driven character
of domains? Why agonize over any particular one of them?

Is this all just driven by old wounds regarding PIR's escape from any
sort of control?

        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

More information about the At-Large mailing list