That’s Billion with a “B”.
For me the issue isn’t whether the Google brand is worth $100 Billion or $50 Billion, but what VeriSign would charge Google, to renew its domain per year, if the price caps on domain prices were lifted?
I know your thinking this issue was dealt with years ago.
I know your thinking this issue was decided.
But its wasn’t and its not.
The issue is still current, because as of the last guide of the new gTLD’s, variable pricing is still in play for all new gTLD’s, and existing TLD already made their feelings known that they want the same treatment that new TLD’s get.
This TechCrunch post should remind you that your most valuable domains are subject to Verisign placing a renewal fee (value) on them, that simply you couldn’t afford.
If Google.com is valued at $100 Billion, what is the domain renewal fee worth in a no holds barred, free market system?
What is your best domain worth in the same system and could you afford the renewal fee?
What are you going to do?
I highly doubt this would have a leg to stand on in the end.
It’s discriminatory and clearly amounts to bad faith in profiting off the marks of others which translates into to “REGISTRY LEVEL” cybersquatting.
They will be embroiled in litigation…
UDRP
This issue will be in litigation.
However this should not be of any comfort to any domain holder.
Sure Google can spend tens of millions litigating the issue, but if you own 500 good domains and get a bill from VeriSign for $5K per name average, or a total of $2.5 Million you can litigate but in the meantime your domains if unpaid, will go to auction and be awarded to the highest bidder.
So just to say its OK, Google.com, renewal fees will go to trial at some point, isn’t going to help the rest of us, once our domains are taken back for non-payment of renewal fees and reassigned to others
Where will all the money go? To Verisign? To ICANN?
Whoever it goes to, I’ll be buying up their stock as 99% of domains will be worthless due to the carrying costs.
Tony
The money would go to VeriSign.
Very interesting and amusing subject. I read with great pleasure.
If Verisign chooses to jack up prices, then .Com won’t be “king” anymore. Another gTLD will take on which I believe will be .Web.
Lisa
If any registry is allowed to “jack up prices” all of them will.
Join the ICA and renew your names through the max time period at current rates. (and if you own a home have the lowest interest rate possible for the longest term possible to hedge the inevitable FED generated inflation tsunami)
J-
That is the best advice for all domain holders.
Well if there had to be a little silver lining I would say that if I have a domain that Verisign decides to charge a renewal of $50k a year, and I have already registered it for the max 10 years, that means I’ve got 10 years before the $50k renewal price starts for me. So I could maybe sell the domain with those 10 years left on it for $250k. That’s a discount of 50% off for the first 10 years for the purchaser.
Michael is this post a little off the deep end ? Whether domainers like Verisign or not, it is a pretty smart company business wise, they know that if they charged fees of just $500 a name most names would drop, and no one would rereg at $500 a piece. I think Verisign would be thrilled to just keep increasing slowly and most would say each year “Oh its just another .30” They would still have 80 to 90 million names registered rather than having 1 million regged. Again IMO
DotWTF, you only need to look at Verisign’s bottom-line;
if they charge 1000 major domain owners $1,000,000 to renew their best domain, they’ll make $1 Billion. That’s roughly their annual profit already. With roughly 81 million .com domains currently registered, charging $500/year on every other domain is just icing on the cake – they won’t care if 99% drop as they’ll still make another $500 million on the 1% that pay $500 to keep their domain.
Dot
“At $50o year most names would drop and no one would register at $500 a piece”.
First they wouldn’t charge every domain the extra fee, just the good ones.
Just like .TV there are premium names that carry a large annual fee but most can be registered to renewed for the regular fee.
The premium fee would apply to just the best few million names and you don’ think some one would pony up $100K a year to own Hotel.com? or $500K.
Sure they would.
They would be lining up.
Guys and Gals,
If I understand what Mike is saying correctly …
some new gTLDs will become priceless.
Say the city.coms get hit … the value of .city will rise in aggregate proportion.
The city.coms will be “taxed” to death while .city will grow in a tax free zone ?
Anthony
Anthony
Not really because if the price caps are lifted, they will be lifted for all extensions including the new gTLD’s (that is still the current proposal).
So the registry for say .miami could charge whatever they wanted as a registration or renewal fee for say homes.miami.
Also keep in mind, even if price caps are not lifted I would expect most new gTLD’s registries to auction off any domain with multiple pre-orders, the hold back the best of the domains, for premium auctions, just like .me and .mobi did on their launch.
Isn’t this the same as “share cropping”?
Wiki quote –
“a landowner allows a tenant to use the land in return for a share of the crop produced on the land (e.g., 50 percent of the crop).”
If they are not careful, Verisign and Icann may kill the golden goose.
That is why the IP lobbyist (representing the largest global corporations including Verisign) pushed Congress to slap down Icann’s demand to become independent.
Now, Congress thru DOC can veto variable/premium pricing.
Since, Eric Schmidt of Google is a close advisor to Obama, I don’t think .com will be touched in the short term.
I don’t understand why VeriSign would get to profit off of renewal fees based solely on a domain’s perceived market value. A domain like Google.com, when Google is the one who paid to build it into the brand that it is today, should always cost the same as the first day they registered it. Google.com, was barely worth more than reg fee when it was conceived and VeriSign should not be able to exploit any value built up over time if the name does not lapse.
Even with premium names, if you pay say $10,000 annually to renew Christmas.tv and you are able to build it into a multi million dollar website, VeriSign could arbitrarily change your annual reg fee to $250,000/year and not tell you how they arrived at that number. Even if you reg your best domains for ten years at current prices, ten years isn’t a very long time.
They are determined to weed out small investors who may hold valuable internet real estate as the internet becomes more intertwined with daily life. There is just too much money to be made. We have been warned. Prepare accordingly.
Ozie
Well of course that is the argument, I and others, have been making to ICANN for years.
However this issue keeps coming up and now through the second draft of the Guidebook for the new gTLD’s its still there
I think what MHB is trying to say is that just because something isn’t Just or Fair, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. And if it does happen, but then later gets removed again you still get screwed in the meantime if you can’t carry your domains.
Realistically premium pricing could only/should only ever apply to new registrations, not renewals. I’d be annoyed with it, but ok with that. I’m not sure how drops should be handled as then verisign would be adding cost to the registration due to what the previous domain owner may have put into the site that could still be generating traffic from, but again that might be fair. Compared to Real Estate, you’d pay more for a commercial space if it is a space that was dropped by a previous tennant that was in a similar business that had a high volume of customers coming in.
You should never assume that something won’t happen because you think it is ridiculous. If stupd and unjust crap didn’t happen then the ICA would have no need to exist, nor any other similar entity in other markets.