[Comments-info-renewal-18mar19] Proposed changes to .info commentary

Sean Kamath kamath at mac.com
Wed Apr 24 05:33:14 UTC 2019

To Quote:

“This change will not only allow the .info renewal agreement to better conform with the base registry agreement, but also takes into consideration the maturation of the domain name market and the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement.”

I don[t believe there should be ANY requirement that the .info agreement “conform” to the base registry agreement.  Would that be the case, why not simply remove ALL specific agreements?  There is a reason to deviate for different gTLDs.  Each country code has their own restrictions they put on the use of certain gTLDs.  Should we remove that?  Should we treat .xxx the same as .edu?  Please, no.

What this is, in effect, is a catering to the greed of domain registry operators.  The internet was designed for the public good.  Granted, industry did a lot to further the use of the internet, and I have no problem with allowing .com to charge an insane amount of money for a domain (though I appreciate that I don’t pay through the nose for my domains).  But .info is . . . different.  .info is an information construct.  Should we allow domain registry operators to charge the same for institutional operators as the chess club?  Do we want to see a proliferation of supposedly “fair" pricing plans that really just mean that companies running registries can maximize their profit at the expense of . . . well, everyone?  I mean, the Googles and Apples of the world can still snap up any and all domain names they want, and it won’t even cost them the INTEREST on their cash holdings. But the difference between $10/year and, say, $100/year, well, that is the difference between having a presence on the internet, and just using Twitter to tell people things.

Perhaps ICANN really does want the internet to be the domain of 5-6 special companies, who, of course, only have our best interests at heart.

Don’t be the greedy people you are tempted to become.  I think fee caps for ALL domains make sense.  I’m not suggesting there shouldn’t be some way for registrars to recoup the cost of what they’re doing.  But most of the registrars simply resell their “service” to other companies that tack on those moneymaking add-ons that people who aren’t familiar with internet services both want and need.  But for the chess clubs, the book clubs, the collectors clubs, and all the other groups interesting in promoting their interests and providing “info“. . . let’s not make it possible for greedy corporations to bilk people.  Running a registry should be a non-profit operations, in my opinion.  But since I can’t have that, can I at least have the regulation that keeps things useful, affordable, and reasonable?

Thank you.

Sean Kamath

PS Is this copy and pasted?  A bit.  Look, my feelings about .info mirror those about .org.  SO, yeah, they’re kinda the same feelings.

More information about the Comments-info-renewal-18mar19 mailing list