[Comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-08oct18] Initial Report of the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP)

John Poole jp1 at expri.com
Tue Dec 11 22:25:13 UTC 2018

 RE: Public Comment on Initial Report of the Cross-Community Working Group
on New gTLDAuction Proceeds (CCWG-AP)

1. I find ICANN's whole scheme of auctioning off new gTLDs to the "highest
bidder" repugnant and a violation of the principles set out by Jon Postel
in RFC 1591 and the advice given to ICANN by the U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division in December, 2008 (attached to a letter to ICANN from
NTIA <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf>):

"... These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated
> [top-level] domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated
> manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for ... the global Internet
> community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
> inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities"
> and "service" to the community .... Significantly interested parties in the
> domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party
> ... it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in
> selecting the designated manager ..."--Jon Postel, March, 1994, RFC 1591
> <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>.
> "... The [U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust] Division makes two
> specific recommendations. First ICANN’s general approach to new gTLDs
> should be revised to give greater consideration to consumer [registrant]
> interests … Second, the RFP process and proposed registry agreement should
> include provisions that would enable ICANN to constrain new registry
> operators from exercising market power. In particular, ICANN should
> establish competitive mechanisms for authorizing new gTLDs and renewals of
> gTLD registry agreements whereby prospective gTLD operators would compete
> for gTLDs by proposing registry terms – including maximum fee schedules –
> that would provide consumer [registrant] benefits."--U.S. Department of
> Justice Antitrust Division, Dec 3, 2008
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3zjyRMTBSc7UzViS0stOWhQR3c/view?usp=sharing>

2. Auctions (both "private" and "ICANN last resort") have corrupted ICANN
and the processes for developing new gTLDs--*"it's all about the money"*--and
increase costs that new gTLD registry operators can only recoup by charging
registrants far more money for new gTLD domain name registrations and
renewals than necessary had ICANN followed RFC1591 and the advice of the
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division cited above. In effect,
consumers (domain name registrants) are bearing, directly and indirectly,
the entire costs of *ICANN's ill-conceived, horribly implemented
and* corrupt program for new gTLDs*.

3. Adding insult to injury,* ICANN* and its "contracted parties" have
engaged in "*consumer* (registrant) *fraud*" by failing to warn registrants
worldwide of *new gTLDs* "failing to work as expected on the internet"
of which ICANN and its  Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)
have been well aware since 2003. Further, ICANN has failed to inform and
warn domain name registrants worldwide that *unlike the market dominant
legacy gTLD .COM*, which has price controls, *new gTLDs, by design*, come
with no price controls and any of ICANN's monopoly new gTLD registry
operators can (and have
increase pricing of registration and renewal fees (by 3000% or more), from
year to year.

4. I have read with interest other comments submitted by certain
"contracted parties" advocating ICANN allocate the auction proceeds for a
worldwide marketing campaign a/k/a "awareness campaign" for the benefit of
"contracted parties" who have discovered that many consumers (registrants)
don't want their "garbage extensions" that "fail to work as expected on the
internet," "break stuff," and are totally untrustworthy as they have no
maximum price increase caps or schedules. Should ICANN succumb to this
"money grab" by "contracted parties," I will enjoy petitioning, along with
others, the U.S. government's Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the
California State Attorney General, and other governmental authorities, for
revocation of ICANN's nonprofit, IRC 501(c)(3) status, and the imposition
of other statutory penalties and remedies.

5. In lieu of the contracted parties' proposed "money grab" above and all
other third parties' already proposed, or yet to come, "money grabs," ICANN
should instead end this entire repulsive and tawdry "money grab" stampede,
and announce it will set aside ALL of the auction proceeds for the benefit
domain name registrants who have, indirectly, provided these funds, by: a)
ICANN conducting continuous worldwide "awareness campaigns" to warn all
domain name registrants, all prospective registrants, and all other
consumers, about the *new gTLDs* "failing to work as expected on the
and the* lack of consumer protection in new gTLDs *against price gouging,
exorbitant price increases, and total lack of price caps and controls,
unlike the market dominant gTLD .COM domain names; b) setting up a
restitution fund for consumers (registrants) worldwide who have claims as a
result of the aforementioned "consumer fraud;" c) funding research, and
continuously publishing the results via notices on the "home" and "landing"
pages of all ICANN-accredited registrars, ICANN.org, and newgTLDs.icann.org,,
ranking all new gTLDs by "usability,"* i.e.,*testing all new gTLDs in
comparison against gTLD .COM, to determine the extent to which each new
gTLD "fails to work as expected on the internet
along with wholesale pricing information and other pricing disclosures
already mentioned, so that ALL consumers (registrants) can make "informed
decisions" in deciding whether, or which, gTLD to select, in registering a
domain name; d)  funding ALL of the continuous data collection and surveys
recommended in the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review
Team (CCT) Final Report & Recommendations
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en>, and
other continuous data collection and surveys as may be appropriate.

6. Disclosure: I have neither monetary claims nor pecuniary interests
(individually or otherwise) related to providing any of the services
suggested above.

Respectfully submitted,
John Poole, gTLD domain name registrant and *Editor, *DomainMondo.com

cc: ICANN Chairman Cherine Chalaby, ICANN CEO Goran Marby, ICANN GDD Cyrus
Namazi, NTIA (David Redl), FTC, US Department of Justice Antitrust Division
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-08oct18/attachments/20181211/b2e1a815/attachment.html>

More information about the Comments-new-gtld-auction-proceeds-initial-08oct18 mailing list