[CPWG] Communication to ICANN GC

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi Micheal,

I greatly appreciate the length and thoughtfulness put into your email, as
well as your offer. However I suspect that our approaches may be so
radically different as to make collaboration difficult. As I describe my
worldview of the domain-name landscape below, I invite any and all attempts
to find common ground in seeking paths forward.

You speak of the dot-com price increase of $2 over five years, and
potential future increases as if they're a bad thing. I come from the
opposite PoV, that they're way too cheap. The starting point of my solution
is that retail domains should be at least $15 to $25, based on higher ICANN
fees. The extra revenue generated by these fees would go toward abuse
reduction, public education into using the Internet safely and effectively,
as well as public oversight that has more substance and authority to it
than ALAC was ever designed to provide. It would also compensate for the
reduction in total domains, which is beneficial for a number of reasons.

My rationale:

To registrants using a domain for their legitimate business, communications
or personal interest (going forward I will call them "domain consumers") ,
$15 a year is a miniscule part of the total cost of providing the
infrastructure, content and marketing to maintain an Internet presence. If
the benefits above were provided I think that most domain consumers would
find that good value. (The public education component indicated above is
bidirectional, requiring appropriate market research so that we know what
the public wants and needs from Internet domains.)

Of course, raising the price will also lower the volume of domain purchases
and renewals, which I also think is a Very Good Thing. The status quo means
that many sensible domain names are scooped up by speculators whose only
"added value" is being in the queue first. I find the domain-resale
industry, by and large, at the same ethical level as concert ticket
scalpers. And the ticket-scalper analogy is very useful when you look at
how ticket prices have skyrocketed for in-demand concerts. Far better for
the artist to get the proceeds of that demand-induced price boost than the
scalper.

Higher domain prices will have negligible effect on domain consumers but I
suspect it would have a significant effect on those keeping portfolios of
speculative domains. Scores of domains that are of borderline value to
speculators will be released back to the registry pools, making it less
likely that new startups and other registrants have to resort to the
rent-seeking resale market for a suitable domain. Even among existing
domain consumers, there would be less need for defensive domains (if the
extra fees were spent on fighting abuse) so they would benefit too. They
would spend a little more per domain but would need fewer domains. An added
bonus from higher fees could be a drop in the purchases of one-time
"burner" domains obtained for the purpose of abuse.

Of course, such a regime would be poison to today's ICANN because, as you
said, it is financially self-interested (indeed dependent) on having as
many extant domains as possible. I see it as spending the minimum possible
in the public interest, using its resources to (a) support a governance
infrastructure that is unwieldy and unaccountable by design and (b) promote
its own growth by maximizing domain sales. (For instance, I have long held
that the "Universal Acceptance" initiative is merely an elaborate marketing
campaign designed to sell more domains in non-Latin scripts.) Higher fees
mean fewer domains (though higher revenue from each) and probably even a
smaller ICANN than now exists; I would also consider that to be a Good
Thing. Of course maybe ICANN could find other revenue, from foundation
grants and other sources that might make it less dependent on its derived
industries for both governance and policies. I would welcome such a
transition, along with the accompanying boost in accountability. Maybe even
dues from public membership, that would allow people to actually vote for
the Board again...

ICANN's history has enabled entire industries to emerge with little purpose
except to ultimately extract maximum value from domain consumers. These
industries, through the GNSO, have acquired the ability to force the ICANN
Board to enable policies friendly to them while public-interest views from
governments and consumers are relegated to advisory roles. It's a very
"inmates running the asylum" vibe, the very opposite of most organizations
performing regulatory functions. One need look no further than ICANN's
evolution from public Board elections, through a "Nominating Committee"
that doesn't nominate (it appoints), to the sham "empowered community", to
see how the power has shifted and how convoluted everything has become. It
is for this reason that I bristle at those who already have voices through
these other ICANN communities coming to ALAC with the "I'm an end-user
too"  justification. Sorry, but ALAC desperately needs more voices from
those who have not and never will buy a domain, and fewer voices from
insiders that know the game. At very least At-Large needs a
conflict-of-interest policy that goes beyond mere disclosure. The current
insider-heavy makeup is why ALAC serves to constantly react to the agendas
of others rather than set its own from a purely end-user perspective.

Those who know me can verify that these are not new ideas, they are
long-held views that emerged more than a decade ago from my experiences in
ALAC leadership. It's my belief that an ALAC that was truly serving its
bylaw mandate, it would advocate for a domain pool that was smaller but
more effective, and end-users that are better informed on how to use
domains safely and efficiently.

Cheers,

- Evan

PS: Don't get me started on the disparity between gTLDs and ccTLDs. ICANN
has FOREVER had a responsibility to inform the public what the difference
is.
- How is dot-com different from dot-co?
- Why is there still a dot-su TLD?
- Is my use of bit.ly for URL shortening really sending my data through
Libya?
- Why can I buy a .me domain if I don't live in Montenegro?

So much public confusion exists, yet ICANN has shirked its responsibility
to address it.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230827/0adbe17f/attachment.html>