The proposed renewal of Verisign's .net registry contract has been met with opposition from the public.
(https://img.youtube.com/vi/MpZCx8yAnQc/sddefault.jpg)
During ICANN's public comment period, which closed recently, 57 submissions were received, with most expressing concerns about potential domain seizures or complaining about Verisign being allowed to raise its prices. Verisign is currently permitted to raise the price of a .net domain by 10% annually, and this pricing structure will be retained under the proposed contract. This means that prices could reach $17.57 by the time the current contract ends.
Many opponents of the increases have called for ICANN to conduct an economic analysis of the domain name market. Some groups including the Intellectual Property Constituency did not express a view on pricing, but called for greater transparency into the side-deal between Verisign and ICANN. The wording in the proposed contract obliging Verisign to take down domains to comply with "applicable law, government rules or regulations, or pursuant to any legal order or subpoena of any government, administrative or governmental authority, or court of competent jurisdiction" has also faced criticism.
Many commenters are concerned that the definition of "security and stability" in the .net contract differs from the Base Registry Agreement that almost all other registries have signed - a difference that would allow Verisign to ignore future ICANN Consensus Policies under certain circumstances. While past public comment periods have resulted in no changes, some believe new ICANN leadership may lead to a different outcome.
Verisign's obligation to take down domains also raises concerns about the impact on internet governance and the centralization of power. As one of the largest domain registrars, Verisign's decisions can have significant consequences for online businesses and users.
There are worries that Verisign's authority to take down domains gives them a disproportionate amount of control over the internet. This centralization of power can result in a lack of diversity, innovation, and competition in the domain registration industry. It also raises concerns about the potential for monopolistic practices or unfair market dominance.
Additionally, there are concerns about the potential for political or governmental influence on Verisign's decisions. If Verisign is subject to external pressure or demands, it could lead to censorship or suppression of certain viewpoints or ideas.
The lack of transparency surrounding Verisign's decision-making process is also a concern. Without clear guidelines and oversight, it becomes difficult to hold them accountable for their actions. This lack of transparency undermines trust and can lead to public skepticism regarding the fairness and legitimacy of their takedown decisions.
Verisign's obligation to take down domains also raises concerns about the potential impact on online businesses and individuals' livelihoods. If a domain is wrongfully taken down or if there are errors in Verisign's decision-making process, it could have serious consequences for those relying on their websites for income or communication.
Moreover, the lack of clear guidelines and standards for takedowns can create confusion and uncertainty for website owners. They may not know what actions or content could potentially lead to their domain being removed, which could limit their freedom of expression or restrict their ability to conduct legitimate online activities.
Additionally, the global nature of the internet poses challenges when it comes to Verisign's role as a domain registry. Different countries may have different laws and regulations regarding content, which may conflict with each other. Verisign's obligation to take down domains based on certain jurisdictions' laws can lead to inconsistencies and difficulties in enforcing these regulations consistently across different regions.
There is also concern about the lack of accountability and transparency in Verisign's decision-making process. Without clear guidelines or public oversight, there is a risk that Verisign could make arbitrary or biased decisions regarding which domains to take down.
Furthermore, Verisign's obligation to take down domains may not adequately address the root causes of problematic content or behavior. Simply removing a domain does not necessarily address the underlying issues, such as illegal activities or dissemination of harmful content. It is essential to consider more comprehensive approaches that address the underlying problems while still respecting fundamental rights and principles.
Finally, Verisign's obligation to take down domains raises questions about international coordination and cooperation. With the global nature of the internet, addressing cross-border issues requires collaboration between different stakeholders, governments, and organizations. Ensuring effective cooperation and harmonization of policies is crucial to address the challenges posed by Verisign's role in domain takedowns.
In summary, concerns regarding Verisign's obligation to take down domains include the potential for overreach, concentration of power, lack of accountability, incomplete problem-solving, and the need for international cooperation. These concerns highlight the importance of considering a balanced and inclusive approach that protects both fundamental rights and the integrity of the internet.