ICANN Lifts All Price Caps On .Org Domain Names (domainnamewire.com)
71
Reader GeorgeK writes: Despite documented overwhelming opposition by the public, ICANN has lifted all fee caps on .org domain names. As discussed in a prior Slashdot article in April when the public comment period was open, this would permit unlimited fee increases for .org registrants, and may set the stage for higher fees on owners of .com domain names. This decision demonstrates an enormous disconnect between ICANN, which is supposed to serve the public interest as a non-profit overseer of domain name regulations, and the public it purports to serve.
Re: (Score:3)
Uuh, Is there still someone.. (Score:5, Insightful)
...who thinks that ICANN is serving public interest?
I thought most people at least had stopped believing in fairy tales.
Re: (Score:1)
Artificially expensive virtual infrastructure services will result in a digital revolution of sorts, where we innovate and find other ways to resolve addresses and these dirt bags will be left holding their rent seeking business on a deserted island.
Captcha: unneeded
Re: (Score:1)
Thankfully the 'Land of The Free' meme still doesn't appear on Snopes in an unflattering light.
Re: (Score:1)
I heard a rumour that Santa still believes politicians serve the public interest!
Re: (Score:2)
"ICANN, why do you allow such a thing???"
*dramatic pause*
"Because ICANN"
Power corrupts... (Score:5, Insightful)
ICANN has transformed into a tool for their real masters. Want to find their real masters? Follow the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you're saying ICANN is under the thumb of... The Federal Reserve? This is a shocking new conspiracy theory I never saw coming
Naw . . . the "I" in ICANN stands for Illuminati . . . so it's just the usual suspects, spreading out into new ventures.
However, I don't know what the "C", "A", "N" and "N" again stand for. My Illuminati decoder ring is broken.
Maybe someone here can help me out . . . ?
Raise minimum price (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not terribly concerned about price caps as long as there is enough competition to keep them down (though I question how effective that is). What I really care about is minimum prices. I don't want some squatter to find a way to register thousands of domains for a dollar a year. If the best I can find is $12/year, then that's what the squatters should be paying, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The price cap was on the operator of the register, not on the middlemen. There is zero competition. It is an absolute monopoly.
Forgot the sub-headline (Score:2)
Customers buying product object to increased prices!
I have no idea what the right way to price domains is. I do know a price cap will mean people will buy and squat on domains they don't actually need. And I find the argument that the companies and organizations paying for the domain names like price caps not compelling. Of course they want price caps, that keeps their costs down. Until they need to pay a domain name squatter on the side to release the name.
Obama Surrender (Score:3, Informative)
The ICANN is no longer under public oversight - it is now an independent, global organization. Don't act surprised it is not serving the public interest, but be sure to thank Obama for it not having to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not Obama's fault that the other 95% of the world didn't like the US government being able to hold the global DNS hostage.
How to drive out small time domain owners. (Score:1)
My take: By taking the cap of who is going to get hurt? The people who own domain names before the WWW even existed and don't necessarily have deep pockets. If it gets to costly the individual owner of a domain name may just give it up, exactly what corporations want. What I have come to realize, in the US, the Democrats and the Republicans will do the bidding of corporations at the expense of the citizens who elected them. Sad, sad..
Re: (Score:1)
Santa, is that you?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The FCC is a U.S. government agency, ICANN is not. If it weren't for Pai and a compliant Senate, the FCC would be working in the public's interest.
Re: (Score:2)
If it weren't for Pai and a compliant Senate, the FCC would be working in the public's interest.
Don't kid yourself. In theory they'd be working in the public interest (assuming one can define a single public interest, which you probably can't). Do you know the difference between theory and practice? In theory, nothing.
In practice, every regulatory body is vulnerable to political pressure and regulatory capture. The FCC is no different.
Re: (Score:3)
Doubt that it will happen in my lifetime and I even slightly hope it won't.
I hear you on the slightly hope it won't part but unless you're pretty old it might happen in your lifetime. The US is collapsing and for various reasons the collapse isn't being addressed. Culturally there isn't a central narrative to help bind things together. A peaceful breakup would be in everyone's best interest.
Reminder: .de Domains cost less than $0.2/month (Score:2, Interesting)
Germany's TLD .de is operated by DENIC, a non-profit cooperative of hundreds of internet and hosting providers. A domain under .de can be had for less than $0.20 a month, and that includes all taxes and is not a loss-leader. Prices for .org, .com and .net are too high already. ICANN really isn't doing its job.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because .com, .org and .net are considered "desirable" so they in theory should cost more. Country code TLDs cost less because they are considered less desirable because users must type the coun
Sliding price? (Score:1)
Assuming they are trying to fix a squatting problem, how about a sliding price scale. The more domains an entity owns, the higher the price per domain. Attempts at hiding your identity to pay less results in registery timeout.
Aside from the squatting, is there some other reason except greed that the price should be higher than the cost?
.com price caps? (Score:2)
Are there caps on .com now? Because .com is cheaper than .org right now at the discount registrars. I thought. com was 'merely' competitive.
This is just fearmongering fake news clickbait, right?
Re: how about just make squatting illegal. (Score:2)
Or make domain transfers illegal. You could add a small exception for domains transferred as part of a larger transaction such as when a legitimate business is sold.
Regulatory capture, go to the darknet (Score:2, Interesting)
Regulatory capture.
It should be clear to everyone by now that the mechanism of Government bodies regulating industries does not work and in fact does the opposite of what is intended; the Government body is captured, and then uses it's position and capability to pass law to protect the incumbents and raise barriers to entry.
The raising of barriers to entry points in the direction of the solution - competition. It is what incumbents hate the most, and it is the one way in which the public are safe - that th
Prices should be going down (Score:2)
As the cost of providing the service continues to drop from minuscule to nearly invisble to the naked eye.
disconnect ? (Score:2)
This decision demonstrates an enormous disconnect between ICANN, which is supposed to serve the public interest as a non-profit overseer of domain name regulations, and the public it purports to serve.
Not more than politicians, many NGOs and journalists.
$$$ has become the new god that most people serve, and maximizing profit is the "nobody ever got fired for..." goal.
It's disgusting, really, to watch the entire species become slaves to colored pieces of paper.
Your opinion doesn't count (Score:1)
I've worked in and been around the DNS since the early 90's so I'm closer to the matter than most on here. IMHO:
ICANN is a poster child for corporate manipulation and regulatory capture. I'd say the biggest culprits are Verisign and their major shareholders like Berkshire Hathaway, followed by the new gtld registries and their founders/investors.
ICANN (i.e. Board members, executives, and staff) don't care about domain owners, and domain owners have been continually, progressively and systematically margi