PDA

View Full Version : Comment period on new gTLD Agreement


squirrel
6th February 2013, 01:48 PM
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm

It is a golden occasion for us to voice our concern with respect to the contractual discrepancies between existing gTLD contractual obligations and their internationalized TLD proposed contractual obligations as well as all the aliasing issue - essentially points that were raised by RD in the last comment period (https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/1477)

Please share ideas for a comment template and let's all post before the Feb 26th deadline.

Rubber Duck
6th February 2013, 05:45 PM
1) These domains can only exist as aliases of existing IDN dot Coms as to prevent user confusion.

2) Because the existing registrants have these righs, Verisign should be restricted in their fees to the reasonable cost of providing the service that they provide. They are not selling any intellectual property as that is already legitimate owned by the existing registrants.

3) ICANN has a duty to ensure that existing registrants are contractually protected.

DktoInc
6th February 2013, 10:14 PM
Questions for the older and the wiser....

why only .com and .net are singled out? should the contract details apply to every one else including the cclds? after all a lot of these new idn tlds are just extension to already existing ascii tlds (.org ,.ws,) and idn.ascii has been available to reg for a long time in the gtld and cctld space.
From what we've seen in the cctld space is that some get aliased to their new idn tld (ex.cn) and others don't, creating 2 separate domains in the cctld space (idn.ascii and idn.idn), example Kazakhstan, Korea...
Now, lets say Icann does what RD suggested for .com .net then they must do this to all tlds that already offer idn.ascii for registration "to protect the rights of existing domain owners and to protect the stability and security of the Internet by ensuring that the creations of these transliterations do no result in future user confusion."

yanni
6th February 2013, 11:32 PM
The IDN cctlds are not transliterations of existing ASCII cctlds. dot "China" for example, is not the same as dot "CN" so no user confusion there. Anyway, the cctlds are out of the gates already.

This is for com net and org. (The apps for dot "WebSite" have nothing to do with dot WS, which is a cctld anyway).

DktoInc
6th February 2013, 11:54 PM
The IDN cctlds are not transliterations of existing ASCII cctlds. dot "China" for example, is not the same as dot "CN" so no user confusion there. Anyway, the cctlds are out of the gates already.

Not transliterations, but they are still extensions of the existing cctld. Anyway China is the one that did it the proper way. As for the others well, no one controlling what they do. If for example .jp is smart enough to alias the idns cctld without ever mentioning it in their future application then good, if not then there will be 2 different domains, everyone who is developing websites on idn.jp currently is out of luck. Further, that will cause user confusion which by the way is not regulated by anyone at this point but the greedy registries.

(The apps for dot "WebSite" have nothing to do with dot WS, which is a cctld anyway)
Ok, I C. so even though Verisign is the contract holder for .ws, it is still a cctld and falls under a cctld fast track only.

Rubber Duck
7th February 2013, 01:13 AM
Questions for the older and the wiser....

why only .com and .net are singled out? should the contract details apply to every one else including the cclds? after all a lot of these new idn tlds are just extension to already existing ascii tlds (.org ,.ws,) and idn.ascii has been available to reg for a long time in the gtld and cctld space.
From what we've seen in the cctld space is that some get aliased to their new idn tld (ex.cn) and others don't, creating 2 separate domains in the cctld space (idn.ascii and idn.idn), example Kazakhstan, Korea...
Now, lets say Icann does what RD suggested for .com .net then they must do this to all tlds that already offer idn.ascii for registration "to protect the rights of existing domain owners and to protect the stability and security of the Internet by ensuring that the creations of these transliterations do no result in future user confusion."

iCANN has virtually no control over ccTLDs.

Avtal
7th February 2013, 01:30 AM
I found this section interesting:

Concurrent with this public comment period on the proposed revisions to the agreement, ICANN will also ask each applicant to submit a TLD-specific Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN will communicate directly with applicants regarding the details of submitting Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN expects to request applicants to submit their Public Interest Commitments Specifications by 5 March 2013, and ICANN plans to have them all posted for public review by 6 March 2013.

If I understand correctly, this means that on March 6 we will find out whether Verisign and PIR are willing to contractually commit themselves to implement aliasing. The term "public review" is ambiguous; does this mean that we will be given a chance to comment on their commitment, or lack of commitment?

Avtal

squirrel
7th February 2013, 03:02 AM
I found this section interesting:

Concurrent with this public comment period on the proposed revisions to the agreement, ICANN will also ask each applicant to submit a TLD-specific Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN will communicate directly with applicants regarding the details of submitting Public Interest Commitments Specification. ICANN expects to request applicants to submit their Public Interest Commitments Specifications by 5 March 2013, and ICANN plans to have them all posted for public review by 6 March 2013.

If I understand correctly, this means that on March 6 we will find out whether Verisign and PIR are willing to contractually commit themselves to implement aliasing. The term "public review" is ambiguous; does this mean that we will be given a chance to comment on their commitment, or lack of commitment?

Avtal

I don't know Avtal. In any event, we need to make the best out of this opportunity.

Anyone other than David want to post some points we should include in our comments, don't be shy.

Drewbert
7th February 2013, 11:35 AM
Ok, I C. so even though Verisign is the contract holder for .ws, it is still a cctld and falls under a cctld fast track only.

ICANN has no power over ccTLD's as they are considered sovereign property. Apart from those ones that were silly enough to sign contracts with ICANN.

Drewbert
7th February 2013, 11:38 AM
If I understand correctly, this means that on March 6 we will find out whether Verisign and PIR are willing to contractually commit themselves to implement aliasing. The term "public review" is ambiguous; does this mean that we will be given a chance to comment on their commitment, or lack of commitment?


Yes. Someone realised that the promises in the applications didn't automatically translate into contractual obligations and made enough noise to get the situation changed. Hurrah!

Avtal
7th February 2013, 12:39 PM
Please share ideas for a comment template and let's all post before the Feb 26th deadline.

1) ICANN places a great deal of emphasis on DNS Stability. But failure to alias -> user confusion -> perceived DNS instability.

2) Verisign has made many public commitments to aliasing, but didn't make any commitments in its application. The current process should be used to hold Verisign to all its previous commitments, not just the ones in its application.

Avtal

DktoInc
9th February 2013, 09:25 PM
ICANN has no power over ccTLD's as they are considered sovereign property. Apart from those ones that were silly enough to sign contracts with ICANN.

http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/what
There is an important exception to this in the form of “country code top-level domains” (ccTLDs) such as .de for Germany or .uk for the United Kingdom. There are over 250 ccTLDs, some of which have a contract with ICANN; others of which have signed working agreements with ICANN; and some of which have yet to enter any formal agreement with ICANN.ok is this what you mean?

then how to find out who signed those contracts with Icann, did .JP sign it as well? what are they really selling idn.jp or ascii(xn--).jp? will they then blame it on the modern browsers for converting it into native scripts?

It has been done before with .kz and .uz who already in breach of their contracts with Icann.
For those who signed those contracts and working agreements, is Icann entitled to some kind of control over what goes on there? if so, then what RD said :
3) ICANN has a duty to ensure that existing registrants are contractually protected.

Drewbert
9th February 2013, 09:28 PM
3) ICANN has a duty to ensure that existing registrants are contractually protected.

Ahhh. See there's the problem. ICANN doesn't really feel it need to deal with anyone it hasn't signed a contract with.

That's why the UDRP is so messy in parts - ICANN never signed any contracts with the UDRP providers!

Drewbert
19th February 2013, 10:55 AM
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-pic-faqs

Rubber Duck
19th February 2013, 01:43 PM
looks like somebody is trying to draw a line under the protected vested interests previously enjoyed.

clipper
19th February 2013, 03:10 PM
What happens if an applicant fails to submit a PIC Specification by the 05 March 2013?

The applicant will still be expected to enter into a registry agreement with a Specification 11 that includes only section 1.

Window dressing. Waste of legal fees.

squirrel
20th February 2013, 05:00 PM
Thoughts on this please :


Considering that:
- DNS stability and security are of paramount importance to ICANN and the new gTLD program;
- Following these principles, no delegated new gTLD should cause user confusion;
- There are serious concerns that applied for strings which are internationalized versions of existing gTLDs (hereinafter "Strings") may cause such confusion if identitcal second level domains do not resolve to the same address in the two namespaces. (or simply registered to two different entities ?)
- To remedy this, some of the registries of the applied for Strings have discussed technical solutions to mitigate user confusion hereinafter referred to as "Aliasing".
- Details of Aliasing have not been published in any of the publicly available Strings application.
- Yet the issue of user confusion concerns the broad internet community.
- Particularly, existing gTLD second level IDNs registrants have not had the opportunity to comment on Aliasing.

For these reasons, I propose that all applicants of strings which are internationalized versions of existing gTLDs be required to divulge their Aliasing plans or lack thereof as well as their plans to handle existing second level IDNs, where applicable, as part of their Public Interest Commitments.


Moreover, because Aliasing, if implemented, confers a character of near indivisibility between identical second level domains in aliased namespaces, I propose that strings which are internationalized versions of existing gTLDs be subject to the same consumer protection oriented contractual obligations as their existing gTLD counterpart, notably in terms of pricing.

Let's give ourselves 1 or 2 more days to draft some stuff and then we should all post our comment en masse

Also : Do not hesitate to prepare a draft comment in a language other than english. Jose you should do something in Portuguese. IDNer, Seesaw in Chinese. Guru & TD in Thai etc. ;)

clipper
21st February 2013, 05:31 AM
Thoughts on this please :

We may be shooting ourselves in the foot here. If ICANN takes comments seriously, it may delay the very gTLDs we are hoping for while ushering through the hundred or so other IDNgTLDs that are competing with com/net/org. Worst case scenario is widespread adoption of .みんな and .онлайн.

That said, I like it. I think it's worth spelling it out, though:
- The current number of IDNs registered in .net .com and .org (who has these numbers?) would emphasize the considerable existing presence of functioning developed IDNs;
- The existing user base of said IDNs, which would be materially harmed and confused by separating the IDN gTLD from its ASCII counterpart; the end result of such confusion would likely lead to abandonment of IDNs altogether by end users.
- How will the registry protect current users of IDN websites to ensure that the existing ASCII gTLDs are not confused with the new gTLDs?

I think its risky to mention the costs involved:
- It exposes a domainer bias: ICANN is not claiming to protect domainers, but "the public." The focus needs to be on users of sites rather than domain name owners. The minute I read that you want costs restricted I know you're a domainer, which calls into question the entire argument. For better or worse, domainers have a bad name.

clipper
21st February 2013, 06:05 AM
Regarding the pricing issue, I think ICANN prefers to stay out of it.

Moreover, because Aliasing, if implemented, confers a character of near indivisibility between identical second level domains in aliased namespaces, I propose that strings which are internationalized versions of existing gTLDs be subject to the same consumer protection oriented contractual obligations as their existing gTLD counterpart, notably in terms of pricing.

I don't think ICANN really has the jurisdiction here. As I understand it, the pricing issue was due to pressure by the US Department of Commerce:

3. Registry services pricing: Both the current .com registry agreement and the proposed renewal agreement permit Verisign to increase the price it charges registrars for domain names registrations four times during the six-year term with each increase being no greater than 7%. This provision was substantially negotiated between Verisign on the one hand, and the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Commerce, on the other.
Source (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/com-renewal-27mar12-en.htm) (emphasis added)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think our best course of action with ICANN (if any) is ensuring aliasing or at least limiting new gTLD registrations to those existing holders of identical second-level strings.

Pricing issues are going to have to come from elsewhere, likely market pressure.

Rubber Duck
21st February 2013, 08:38 AM
Clipper is right. Screwing the Chinese is not a viable business model.

squirrel
21st February 2013, 12:51 PM
Thx for the comments.

Should it be "may cause confusion if identitcal second level domains do not resolve to the same address in the two namespaces or are registered to two different entities ?

clipper
21st February 2013, 09:02 PM
Thx for the comments.

Should it be "may cause confusion if identical second level domains do not resolve to the same address in the two namespaces or are registered to two different entities?

I'm not sure (this is a little abstract for me), but I'm thinking registered: a single registrant should be able to choose how the different strings resolve. Thinking of names where they could be used for both Chinese and Japanese markets: theoretically, a company using such a name might even want different registrars for each so that native language staff can administer the different strings.

Still not sure if my thinking on this is sound.

domainguru
22nd February 2013, 06:28 AM
I'm not sure (this is a little abstract for me), but I'm thinking registered: a single registrant should be able to choose how the different strings resolve. Thinking of names where they could be used for both Chinese and Japanese markets: theoretically, a company using such a name might even want different registrars for each so that native language staff can administer the different strings.

Still not sure if my thinking on this is sound.

If the owner should be allowed to point variants to multiple places, why keep arguing that having multiple owners would be confusing?

A web user should either expect variants to perform consistently (i.e. mirrored) or not. Arguing for freedom to point variants to different places is half-way to arguing the case for allowing for different owners of the variants.

If you don't have any clarity about what you are commenting on, don't comment .....

clipper
22nd February 2013, 08:54 AM
If the owner should be allowed to point variants to multiple places, why keep arguing that having multiple owners would be confusing?
Well, maybe I'm asking too much in asking for a single registrant with multiple administrations, but hear me out.

What I'm for is complete control of all variants by the registrant, since the registrant is the entity that will most likely respond to the needs of end users.

If we get our way, a single entity is going to have the power to decide how to administer the variants.

If the registry (Verisign) has that power, then the end user experience is compromised by the limitation of the registry, as opposed to the limitation of the registrant/webmaster, who is smaller and more flexible and likely to meet the needs of its clients (end users). The registry is not going to go to the trouble to scan nameservers to make sure that everything is proper; registrants/webmasters would, or they will fail in the marketplace. If the registry controls that, they will just lock them together so that they are the same, because that's easier and cheaper.

A web user should either expect variants to perform consistently (i.e. mirrored) or not. Arguing for freedom to point variants to different places is half-way to arguing the case for allowing for different owners of the variants.
Not really, but I was expecting this objection. I hear you, and it's where I get sketchy on the technical abstractions, but at least we're talking about the same thing here.

Consistency of message is the most important thing from an end-user perspective, and that message may be delivered differently in different cultures that share the same script. A registry is not capable of ensuring that, but registrants are. There is no reason to believe that Bridgestone's Japan website is the same as it's US counterpart, either in design or in the location of its servers.

The question is, who should control the administration of the variant TLDs?

I don't want to relinquish that control to the registry, because they will do the easiest, cheapest thing they can do with a couple million domains: require the variants to have identical administration, including nameservers.

As a smaller and more flexible entity, the registrant is the one who should determine the minutiae of administering the domains. For performance reasons it may make sense to host a Japanese variant in one country and a Chinese variant in another, thus requiring different nameservers. If the registry is given the power to control the administration of variants, then that likely won't be possible. If the registrants are in control, then they can determine what would provide the best experience for their users.

If the registry's in control, from an end-user perspective, either Japanese or Chinese users will experience decreased performance from the site because of the registry's cheap-ass insistence that all variants resolve identically. From a programming perspective, it's more work for the registrant/webmaster to resolve names properly, with no benefit to the end user, since server location may be the ultimate issue.

If you don't have any clarity about what you are commenting on, don't comment .....
Well, squirrel has taken the initiative to ask and hasn't gotten many responses. I'm not the sharpest tack in the toolbox and I'm definitely not the best person on this forum to be addressing these issues, but I do have a stake in the outcome.

Even if I'm just trying to work this out, I'd rather do it on this forum and be corrected than try to do it all in my head and get it wrong in the long run, or post something stupid in the ICANN comments pages.

The biggest hurdle I'm having is in thinking too big or not big enough.

I try to think about this from the perspective of the Big Guns: Bridgestone, or Yahoo, or Google, or Apple, who have vast resources and multiple sites and servers in every country on the planet (and probably extraterrestrial servers). What would be best for them and their users?

Then, what about the domain parkers or small website owners, which vastly outnumber the Big Guns, and may actually equal them in terms of collective firepower? What would be best for them and their users?

Finally, what's best for end users? What's going to get them off of Facebook or Vkontakte or whatever? A slow site that's hosted in the wrong country and may be blocked in their own country because of content intended for another audience? Not likely.

clipper
22nd February 2013, 10:18 AM
A web user should either expect variants to perform consistently (i.e. mirrored) or not.
I think I've located our point of disagreement and here's where my lack of tech savvy really comes into play.

When you say "mirrored", do you mean identical at the user-level or at the registrant-level?

I don't want identical at the user level, since the users may speak different languages, and a trillion identical Chinese sites will turn off valuable Japanese users altogether.

Yes, we can do this with simple php and HTML at the web development level, but it would be better if we did it at the domain administration level. Why? Opportunities to host locally under local jurisdiction and rule of law, which we can't do through a redirect.

The registries can't think that small. They want everything to be the same, and so do we, but we want the ability to be flexible in order to meet the needs of our visitors in their individual markets. We can; they can't.

That's all. And, yeah, I'm asking a lot. For nothing.

clipper
22nd February 2013, 10:19 AM
Clipper is right. Screwing the Chinese is not a viable business model.

I feel like we're married. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or making fun of me.

And we never make love.

Rubber Duck
22nd February 2013, 10:47 AM
I feel like we're married. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or making fun of me.

And we never make love.

No you made me realise the price is irrelevant.

We don't know whether the Chinese will use the IDN Alias or the original IDN.com.

What we do know is that if Verisign try to charge them a rediculous amount of money, that that they will not use it, especially if they can just as easily use the price capped version, IDN.com.

We are sort of in the absurd position, that it matters not what gets decided as long as something gets decided. But then we are talking about ICANN so that is a big ask!

squirrel
22nd February 2013, 02:53 PM
Thanks Clipper, RD. Guru sorry I sent my comment before reading your input.

I changed my comment to refer to registrant control instead of domain resolution for the confusion part and I took out the pricing comment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guys please take the time to post a comment

Steps

1) Go to the first few posts (http://www.idnforums.com/forums/33224-comment-period-on-new-gtld-agreement.html#post210900) of this thread for some inspiration.

All you have to do is come up with a short text that essentially says : registries should divulge their IDN aliasing plans.

It can be a one liner such as :
Registries should be required to discuss their IDN Aliasing plans as part of their Public Interest Commitments

You can write your comment in your native language. ;)

2) Click Here (comments-base-agreement-05feb13@icann.org) to email your comment to ICANN

+For the title use : "Aliasing", or "Public Interest Commitments" or "IDNS", or combination of these words.
+For the body of your email : copy-paste your comment
+Send

3) Post in this thread once you have sent your comment

:-D

clipper
23rd February 2013, 06:58 AM
Verisign has commented, and it looks like they will not be submitting PIC Specifications by March 5.
...under ICANN’s current timeline, applicants that wish to submit public interest commitments will be forced to make such commitments before ICANN has disclosed the new dispute procedure it contemplates creating to resolve disputes under Specification 11. We cannot, nor should any careful applicant, submit public interest commitments without knowing how, and especially who, will decide enforcement disputes that might arise.
As stated above, Verisign has many serious concerns with ICANN’s last minute proposed changes to the June 2012 RA, including the unilateral nature of many of the revisions. Under no circumstance should ICANN staff and the ICANN Board incorporate these proposed unilateral and unacceptable changes into the RA. We are concerned, in part, that ICANN is attempting to force through a new version of the RA that a subset of anxious applicants could feel compelled to accept, thereby empowering ICANN to establish these last minute changes as the new baseline for all new gTLD registry operators. Verisign believes that, in many respects, ICANN’s proposed revisions introduce more confusion than clarity into the process. We look forward to working with ICANN, existing registries, new gTLD applicants, and other interested parties to move the process forward in a responsible and thoughtful manner that ensures that any and all revisions and changes receive consideration and proper input from the stakeholders.



http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/pdfBdw1DP3Dvk.pdf

Rubber Duck
23rd February 2013, 12:05 PM
In other words, in the interest of Freedom and Democracy, they expect ICANN to give them Carte Blanche to screw us all over! :down:

Avtal
23rd February 2013, 02:43 PM
There's an article on the PIC that appeared a couple of weeks ago in DomainIncite: ICANN’s new gTLD Public Interest Commitments idea: genius or pure crazy? (http://domainincite.com/11795-icanns-new-gtld-public-interest-commitments-idea-genius-or-pure-crazy). The article begins: "ICANN has given new gTLD applicants a month to draft their own death warrants." Looks like Verisign feels that way.

Avtal

Rubber Duck
23rd February 2013, 02:52 PM
Kind of seems to me that ICANN are inviting applicants to prempt objections by putting their sales pitch in the Contract.

If they are not prepared to do this then they are inviting objections and will probably end up with somebody else's draft in their contract, or simply end up getting punted into the long grass.

Seems like Verisign is feeling Lucky.

Come on Punk, Make my Day. :lol:

Rockruler
23rd February 2013, 03:26 PM
Done! All we have to do is send the email, right?

Avtal
23rd February 2013, 03:28 PM
Seems like Verisign is feeling Lucky.

Come on Punk, Make my Day. :lol:

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. "

Avtal

Rubber Duck
23rd February 2013, 03:52 PM
Frankly, If Verisign are not prepared to sign an contract that protects the rights of existing registrants and ensures that there is no users confusion, then their application should be rejected. ICANN should pocket the all the $185Ks and Verisign should be invited reapply in the second round.

squirrel
23rd February 2013, 04:21 PM
Done! All we have to do is send the email, right?

Thanks Rock
Yes all it takes is an email

squirrel
23rd February 2013, 04:30 PM
Am I the only one whose comment has not been published 24 hours after being sent ?

sarcle
24th February 2013, 03:37 AM
I'd honestly send an email if I felt it was worth anything. I don't. They will not listen to this nor will it matter in the end. We will either get what we were promised or we won't. Time will tell. I wonder why the IDN market is so confused right now? Anyone have any thoughts? Anyone?

This coming from just a fly on the wall..... buzzzzzz......

squirrel
24th February 2013, 04:11 AM
I'd honestly send an email if I felt it was worth anything. I don't. They will not listen to this nor will it matter in the end. We will either get what we were promised or we won't. Time will tell. I wonder why the IDN market is so confused right now? Anyone have any thoughts? Anyone?

This coming from just a fly on the wall..... buzzzzzz......

We've had success in the past by swarming the comment forum, if that can make you feel better .. :rolleyes:

hanidn
24th February 2013, 04:26 AM
I don’t think Verisign separates the .com brand power by breaking up if they are not dumb nuts.

I care EAI (IDN email) a lot more now and I believe the EAI will be the biggest main key factor for IDN future.

I’m concerning that IETF’s EAI working group has been taking too long for a auth48 now..

Link: http://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C176

squirrel
24th February 2013, 04:53 AM
I don’t think Verisign separates the .com brand power by breaking up if they are not dumb nuts.

I care EAI (IDN email) a lot more now and I believe the EAI will be the biggest main key factor for IDN future.

I’m concerning that IETF’s EAI working group has been taking too long for a auth48 now..

Link: http://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C176

That's very interesting, haven't read these docs. Thx.

If you can take 2 minutes of your time to send a comment in Korean to ICANN with respect to Aliasing, that would be great. You can simply translate one of the example comments listed here and email it by following the instructions : http://www.idnforums.com/forums/33224-comment-period-on-new-gtld-agreement-2.html#post211752
Send me a private message if you need help or clarifications

Drewbert
24th February 2013, 09:58 AM
I think we need to use another term rather than variant. To me "variant" means similar same language term, like the same term in simplified and trad chinese.

What we're talking about here is "full IDN versions of current half-IDN domain names". In doing so, we also highlight the fact that they only delivered HALF the product to early adopters (due to technical difficulties) and those early adopters now need to be delivered the full product - the same domain with the TLD in the non-ASCII language as well as the 2LD bit.

Rubber Duck
24th February 2013, 11:51 AM
I think we need to use another term rather than variant. To me "variant" means similar same language term, like the same term in simplified and trad chinese.

What we're talking about here is "full IDN versions of current half-IDN domain names". In doing so, we also highlight the fact that they only delivered HALF the product to early adopters (due to technical difficulties) and those early adopters now need to be delivered the full product - the same domain with the TLD in the non-ASCII language as well as the 2LD bit.

So in a nut shell. Verisign should deliver on commitments to those that they have been screwing over for a decade, rather than looking for new igenious ways to screw them over.

Doesn't this rather imply that ICANN needs to get some kind of contractual commitment from them?

Sort of guessing because it is closely related to dot Com that somebody in the Commerce Dept might actually read the contract and comment before signing it off?

squirrel
25th February 2013, 01:20 PM
Done! All we have to do is send the email, right?

For everyone thinking about commenting:

You may or may not have to confirm sending your comment by clicking on a link emailed to you automatically by ICANN. The ICANN email may be in your junk/spam folder.