ICANN OKs Tiered Pricing for .org/.biz/.info

wayne writes "As reported on CircleID, Vint Cerf has confirmed that ICANN's new contracts for the .org/.biz/.info domain prices can be tiered, so that google.biz could cost $1 million per year, while sex.biz could cost $100,000/year. This is very similar to how the .tv TLD already works. The domain registrar could also could also use pricing for political purposes, claiming that pricing sex.biz high would be to 'protect the children,' while icann.org could be priced at $1/year. Verisign's contract for .com and .net have recently been renewed, so those domains are safe for now, but I'm sure they would want similar treatment."

Comments

Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit?

[Antony-Kyre]

Shouldn't these be non-profit, or at the most, low-profit? Shouldn't ICANN only be charging enough to keep themselves running as is? How much are they going to be making off this? Is this kind of thing really necessary?

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit?

[Scarblac]

Yes, but they can simply raise the CEO's pay to stay nonprofit.

Re:Shouldn't these basic domains be non-profit?

[Bostik]

Once a tiered pricing thing is in place, how easy would it be for ICANN to keep constantly changing the rules?

Such as require renewable domain names to go through a competetive bidding process? ICANN wouldn't even need to monitor or assess the potential market value the domain names - the bidders would do this on their own and ICANN could just reap the profits.

So if the rules are subject to change, this will be likely abused and will eventually take on a nasty tone.

Google created that value

[zzg]

The word google meant nothing (I know there are other views). And now some other organization should cash in? What are googles options here?
1. Pay and redirecto to google.com
2. Don't pay, someone else will, can google then sue for trademark infringement?

Re:Google created that value

[Don_dumb]

I guess one of the benefits are that as the domain would cost so much more, it is more difficult from someone to cybersit. No average joe can stump up $1m (or however much) to grab google.biz, just in order to get them to payup for the site (and it makes it less profitable to do anyway).
My biggest concern is that ICANN knows that Google et al are going to buy the google name for every TLD simply to prevent confusion and domain squatting, so what is to stop ICANN just making a new TLD every couple of years and then charging through the nose for the right to take a name on that TLD? it would be like a license to print money. I never think that the regulator should also be the body that profits from that system it regulates.

from the article...

[legoburner]

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

Let the .info/.biz/.org landrush.... begin!

Market rates... Choose your poison

[Colin Smith]

Either the domain registrars will make the money or domain squatters will. Choose.

Personally I reckon they should auction names rather than selling them at a flat rate.

Re:Market rates... Choose your poison

[Eivind]

Yeah. But the registrars are the ultimate squatters:

The effectively squat *ALL* of the TLD that they administer, and run -ZERO- risk of investing in domains that they are then unable to sell, aswell as -ZERO- risk of being convicted for abusing others trademarks etc.

Re:Market rates... Choose your poison

[gartogg]

I noticed this thread, and thought for a second (sorry, I know, Slashdotters don't do that) and here's how I figure:
Since there are a limited number of domains (especially useful ones), and it was originally a publically funded system to create the DNS system, we should auction off domains like we do wireless bandwidth: the funds will go to pay for the DNS system, and computer infrastructure projects for the poorest 10% or so of the populace, or something similar (since it was our funds creating the system, we get to do this. And maybe stuff like this will give some incentive for basic research.)

Registrars get to do what they do because they are licensed to do so by a public body. Bad idea - we all know what kind of incentive that government contractors have for efficiency. So move the system to someone with incentives. Contract the entire thing out for 1% of the net proceeds, (after hosting costs) with a quality assurance audit/financial penalty, and let the money roll in. If the bid winner wants to subcontract registrars, they can. Let the market decide.

Why?

[onion2k]

I can see two reasons for doing this:

1. To push the price of unregistered domains up .. fair enough, if the registrar wants to 'auction' domains they should be able to, but as the article states they'd never get any real money from it because of the 6 month notice period. If the site then becomes popular over the 10 year period then it's effectively just..

2. ..ransoming companies running sites on already popular domains such as gamesindustry.biz into paying a lot in 10 years time because they're successful today.

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Besides, the registrar doesn't actually do any more work registering sex.org than registering IwantApurpleMonkey.biz .. so they're just cashing in on percieved value. I suppose it depends on whether you consider your money is going toward paying for the domain name itself like a physical product, or going toward paying for the service of registering a domain name. I'm in the latter group .. I don't see it as 'buying' the domain, just paying for access to the registry.

Mapping is the answer

[BlueCoder]

There isn't anything to prevent a register from taxing the hell out of any website that gets popular. This ammounts to extortion by registers not being banned. The internet community will not stand for it and the offical DNS servers will cease to be recognized as such. Instead ICANN will be religated to it's own TLD. This can both be done at a user and register level. www.slashdot.org.icann It's how TLD DNS should work, with mapping to whom you recognize as the authority.

Keys to Success

[Crash Culligan]

What's the justification on this?

Because they can! They own the TLDs uncontested, they can charge whatever they think the market will bear for service that had been decently regulated until that time.

Pretty much the same thing threatens net neutrality: because they can claim to be a part of it, telcos have a justification to charge for cross-traffic. It flies in the face of the equal-peerage internet that was the original intent, but there it is.

They are cashing in on the efforts of successful companies without any hard work of their own.

So? That's what makes their plan so brilliant. Companies are always seeking to increase profits and eliminate costs, to the point where they can spend nothing and do nothing but rake in the dough and brainstorm how to rake in more dough. It's morally bankrupt and ethically bereft, but as long as the actions are legal, such things are of little concern to the successful modern businessman.

Net Neutrality

[Dachannien]

This is essentially network non-neutrality in other clothing. Registrants would be charged based on content or popularity, rather than by the actual level of resources provided by the registrar that are consumed by the registrant.

The only thing that makes traditional network non-neutrality more insidious is that the companies trying to impose non-neutrality want to do so because they have a product in competition with the companies they want to charge out the nose for access.

Alternate DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of shite! Why should someone with lots of money pay for the same service that someone with little money can get? Sounds like the idea of someone that wants to get rich off someone elses work without having to work hard themselves. Pay rises all round for everyone at ICANN?

I can see the death of ICANN as a result, with the governments of the world uniting to create an alternate DNS and making whan ICANN does irrelevant forever.

ok, maybe not. But I can dream can't I? How do I get a job at ICANN?

And I thought it was worse already

[elronxenu]

So now ICANN has legalised domain name extortion.

What the hell happened to the fundamentals of a domain name representing a company or organisation, or even an individual?

Re:Why?

[speculatrix]

icann control the root nameservers, which carry a pointer to e.g. the name server which hosts google.com's DNS

very popular sites like google will have their DNS cached almost everywhere, meaning very little actual traffic hitting the root nameservers - there will probably be MORE traffic from typo'd non-existent lookups than real ones.

Google isn't going to rule the world...

[x-vere]

...Registrars are. How about that. ICANN decides that registrars can exploit their power to shape the content of the web or make the more successful pay more for their domain. How arrogant and bold. My bet is that these three TLD's are a test bed to see how well the public receives this crap. If it goes without much outcry, then they'll throw in the big dog domains .com and .net. This type of behavior shouldn't go unpunished.

Monopoly? AntiTrust?

[transami]

Can anyone say "Monopoly?" How about "AntiTrust"? Do those terms apply to such an organization?

Re:This is fucking bullshit

[BiggerIsBetter]

There are already alternative DNS providers. Perhaps it's time we started using them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

Whats happenning to this world?

[gorrepati]

Looks like lot of wrong people out there are in power, and are out to extort money. What has the world come to? First there was internet as tubes comic strip, then there was somebody who came up with a brilliant plan of charging for e-mails (supposedly to prevent scam! duh!!) and now ICANN wants to charge these insane amounts of money...

These incompetents dont see how to make money by innovation and thus they resort to bullying.
Taxing businesses unnecessarily is the surest way to kill the market place.

Am I getting this straight?

[dave-tx]

OK, so if I'm reading this correctly....If my current registrar wanted to, they could decide to charge me $1000/year to renew forbis.org, my "vanity" domain name. Assuming no collusion between registrars, I would then be compelled to shop for a different registrar, one of which would likely want to offer me a low price, comparable to what I'm currently paying, knowing that it's basically free money for them.

As annoying as this seems to me, it seems like the only hassle for a non-profit like myself who has no incentive to keep the domain name (other than the fact that it is my name) would be in shopping registrars for a better price. My current registrar may want to try to price-gouge me in hopes that I don't know enough to find a new registrar, but a competing registrar would be more likely to try to attract my business.

Is this about right? Am I missing something here?

Re:Am I getting this straight?

[doon]

This is at the registry level, not the registrar level. So the the .org registry deceded that forbis.org was worth $40k per year, I believe your only recourse would be to get forbis.someOtherTLDThatDoesntDoTieredPricing.

But From the article

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.

So even if they where going to jack your registration fee, you could still get it for 10 years at 2006 prices.

utter bullshit

[Ender Ryan]

Traditional economics doesn't come into play when corrupt organizations worm their way into a position that gives them a right to practically print money.

Democrats vs Republicans?

[coyote-san]

Domains can be priced due to political reasons? The example given is sex.com (which points out to just how far into the weeds this country has gotten).

What about the political parties? What's to keep a registrar from saying Republican domains can be registered for $10/year, but Democrat domains will cost $100/year? We might think that no shareholders would stand for this, but rogue corporate management is no longer rare. (They have to have annual meetings? Sure, on the second week in January in Fargo, North Dakota, and stockholder questions will only be accepted for two hours. Answers not guaranteed.)

That might be too naked, but you could easily have subtle biases. The two major parties get "preferred rates" since they buy so many domains. Third-parties and upstart challengers get higher rates. BushSucks type sites get the highest rates. Subtle, but real, pressure against change.