[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Comments for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy

[yadgar at yahoo.com]

One of the main motivating factors of creating the new gTLDs was to give the people more choice.
However, by allowing registries to reserve as many domains as they want, and allowing them to also charge high premiums for domains, what ICANN has done is to create monopolistic registries which, for all intent and purposes, act exactly as domain investors - only they have a practical unlimited inventory.
Take for example the registry that acquired .online. They reserved thousands upon thousands of domains, and ask for incredible high yearly fees for tens of thousands more. A yearly renewal fee in the five figures is not uncommon in new gTLDs.
While I am not against the idea of domain investing, giving one company the monopoly over a whole extension so that they can act exactly like a domain investor seems very wrong.
I propose that future extensions should have rules that will forbid registries from reserving an unlimited amount of domains, and additionally put some kind of cap in the number of domains that a registry can charge a premium for (or alternatively set an upper limit to what a registry can charge for a domain).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/attachments/20180707/597bec87/attachment.html>