news US Gov to renew Verisign deal, but questions pricing

DomainNameWire said:

(NTIA) today sent a letter to Verisign (NASDAQ: VRSN) affirming that it will renew the agreement for running the .com registry. However, the organization said it was opening a discussion about pricing

Click to expand...

Assuming $VRSN is just reacting to the overall down market today? Or could the stock be moving on the news?



Pros: Contract Renewed?
Cons: Pricing Questions?

I'd love to hear from any domainer $VRSN investors to hear their thoughts?

Might be interesting to note how $VRSN has reacted to historical NTIA announcements?

Everything was down today and this came out late in the day. Might see some movement tomorrow.

It will be interesting to see if this is substantive or just for show.

From the article: "Since registrars and domain investors are the two primary contingencies that push back against price increases, it makes sense for Verisign to attack both groups."

The pisser is that we, by being forced to pay higher prices, are funding their lobbying war chest. Verisign sucks.

I am going to write a book.

It'll be called Verisign and the Sweetheart Deal of NTIA.

The question about pricing is nothing but half-hearted eye service that will not solve anything.

If Verisign wants I can prove them fast that I made only 2K and lose even more, invested more than 60K, let's do the math and see who is in the profit.

Verisign has been very active in promoting domain investing at conferences in the past. This has been described somewhere in an article about previous price increases. The arguments used at that time actually recur every year. Maybe someone can find the article. Could be that it was written by ICA, not sure.

Future Sensors said:

Verisign has been very active in promoting domain investing at conferences in the past. This has been described somewhere in an article about previous price increases. The arguments used at that time actually recur every year. Maybe someone can find the article.

Click to expand...

A valid perspective. Would certainly be worth uncovering!

Future Sensors said:

Could be that it was written by ICA, not sure.

Click to expand...

Seeing how it doesn't appear Verisign is an ICA member, I don't see a reason why the @ICA would wouldn't** be looking to tackle this issue. Perhaps they're already aware, and have already begun tackling drills!

**Edited

Chris Hydrick said:

A valid perspective. Would certainly be worth uncovering!

Seeing how it doesn't appear Verisign is a member there, I don't see a reason why the @ICA would be looking to tackle this issue. Perhaps they're already aware, and have already begun tackling drills!

Click to expand...

ICA has written some similar pieces about this in the past, which were very good.

I agree that there can be conflicts of interests here and there.

Sometimes I worry about this at night.

This piece is from 2018.

https://circleid.com/posts/20181112_verisigns_attempt_to_increase_fees_unjustified_despite/

Verisign’s Attempt to Increase its Fees Still Unjustified Despite Diversionary Tactic

By Zak Muscovitch, General Counsel, Internet Commerce Association, @ICA

[...]

5. Verisign Encourages Domain Investing and Has Benefited Greatly From It
Verisign, throughout its history, has encouraged people to invest in domain names and has been a primary sponsor at conferences focused on domain name investing. Verisign had good reason to do so, as domain name investors send tens of millions of dollars to Verisign annually from registering millions of domains that no one else has shown much interest in. The business most benefiting from these registrations is Verisign itself, which receives $7.85 per domain name per year while taking no risk, whereas the domain name investor often loses money on his or her investment.[26]

[...]

Six years ago the NTIA could have demanded changes. Now all they can do is ask politely and wait for Verisign to say no.

I think the time would be better spent by dragging everyone involved in the 2018 contract in front of congress and forcing them to explain why the contract ceded control over the .com TLD. It may not change anything, but at least it would create a public record of those responsible for dismantling the protections consumers used to have.