To: Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California corporation
(hereinafter “ICANN”)
1.
I have no
objection to the proposed .COM Registry Agreement extension as it simply provides the same
additional six year contract term that Verisign would be entitled to in 2018
under its contractual right of presumptive renewal. Accordingly, I adopt and support
a portion of the comments already submitted by Philip Corwin on behalf of
the
Internet Commerce Association (ICA)
on August 11, 2016, posted on your “Comments Forum” page at
https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-com-amendment-30jun16/pdfaJOiVQsMmt.pdf, specifically:
3. Had
NTIA made
clear what would happen to the
CooperativeAgreement, particularly the price limitation on .COM domain names after
November 30, 2018, in view of the IANA Stewardship Transition scheduled to
occur upon lapse of the IANA functions contract on September 30, 2016, much of
the fear, angst, frustration, hostility, and mistrust, as expressed in the many
comments already submitted, could have been avoided.
4. Likewise, had ICANN and Verisign made clear what would
happen to the pricing of .COM domain names after November 30, 2018, should NTIA
not extend the Cooperative Agreement including Amendment 32, many of the
concerns already expressed in the comments could have been alleviated.
6. .COM is the most important TLD ( Top-Level Domain) in the
world.
Accordingto Verisign, the .COM “domain name base” consists of 127, 763,819 domain
names as of August 12, 2016. As one of the “original” gTLDs, it has a long
history which predates the existence of ICANN. The domain name registrants of
.COM include
“every Fortune 500 company
and the world’s fastest-growing companies.” With a record of
“100 percent reliability for more than 15
years” it is fitting and appropriate that Verisign continue to serve as both
Root Zone Maintainer and .COM registry operator. There is no provision in
current ICANN policy nor the current .COM registry agreement, nor any other
gTLD registry agreement ,that provides for “a competitive public tender”
barring a material, continuing, breach by the registry operator (see
Annex to this comment, below).
7. I follow closely the public disclosures required of Verisign
Inc. by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the rules of the
NASDAQ stock exchange. I also note that Verisign is subject to the jurisdiction
of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ). As a
publicly traded company with a market capitalization of 8.9 billion dollars (US),
it has the resources and incentives to continue providing reliable services to the
global internet community as Root Zone Maintainer and .COM Registry Operator.
8. Finally, I note in passing the inappropriate comments
submitted by
INTA
and the
IPC.
First, INTA, the International Trademark Association, has a conflict of
interest in submitting any comment to ICANN since ICANN is a member of INTA, the worldwide lobbying organization for trademark attorneys and other trademark interests,
and ICANN staff have “coached” INTA members on how to “lobby” ICANN on policy-making,
see
Why Did ICANN Become a Member of Trademark Lobbyist Group INTA? Second, as both INTA and IPC know, all Rights
Protection Mechanisms are currently under review as noted by Philip Corwin in
the comment submitted by the ICA (see above), and the ICANN Board has made it
clear it is not appropriate to extend new gTLD RPMs to legacy gTLDs such as
.COM,
see DomainMondo.com:ICANN Renews .CAT, .PRO, .TRAVEL, RAs with URS Included:
"Accordingly, the Board's approval of
the Renewal Registry Agreement is not a move to make the URS
mandatory for any legacy TLDs, and it would be inappropriate to do so."--ICANN
Board of Directors. In fact,
cybersquattingcomplaints against .COM domains are dropping and there is no reason to
extend any of the new gTLD RPMs to .COM. Instead, INTA and IPC could better spend
their time educating their own members and participants on
not filing
meritless UDRP cases or otherwise engaging in abuse of the UDRP and other legal
processes—see
this comment by attorney John Berryhill.
Respectfully submitted,
John Poole
Annex:
.com Registry Agreement
(1 December 2012)
REGISTRY AGREEMENT
This REGISTRY AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is
entered into as of 1 December 2012 by and between Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
("ICANN"), and VeriSign, Inc. a Delaware corporation.
ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION
Section 1.1 Effective Date. The Effective Date for purposes
of this Agreement shall be December 1, 2012.
....
Section 4.1 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall
expire on November 30, 2018. The Expiration Date shall be November 30, 2018, as
extended by any renewal terms.
Section 4.2 Renewal. This Agreement shall be renewed upon
the expiration of the term set forth in Section 4.1 above and each later term,
unless the following has occurred : (i) following notice of breach to Registry
Operator in accordance with Section 6.1 and failure to cure such breach within
the time period prescribed in Section 6.1, an arbitrator or court has
determined that Registry Operator has been in fundamental and material breach
of Registry Operator's obligations set forth in Sections 3.1(a), (b), (d) or
(e); Section 5.2 or Section 7.3 and (ii) following the final decision of such
arbitrator or court, Registry Operator has failed to comply within ten days
with the decision of the arbitrator or court, or within such other time period
as may be prescribed by the arbitrator or court.
….
"Section 7.3 Pricing for Domain Name Registrations and
Registry Services ... (c) Price for Registry Services. The price for all
Registry Services subject to this Section 7.3 shall be the amount, not to
exceed the Maximum Price, that Registry Operator charges for each annual
increment of a new and renewal domain name registration and for each transfer
of a domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another.
(d) Maximum Price. The Maximum Price for Registry Services subject to this Section
7.3 shall be as follows: (i) from the Effective Date through 30 November 2018,
US $7.85; (ii) Registry Operator shall be entitled to increase the Maximum
Price during the term of the Agreement due to the imposition of any new
Consensus Policy or documented extraordinary expense resulting from an attack
or threat of attack on the Security or Stability of the DNS, not to exceed the
smaller of the preceding year's Maximum Price or the highest price charged
during the preceding year, multiplied by 1.07."
Read all comments submitted
here. Comments Close Date 12 Aug 2016 23:59 UTC.
feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo
DISCLAIMER
