news US Gov lets Verisign increase .Com pricing

[offthehandle]

Just saw this.

https://domainnamewire.com/2018/11/01/breaking-u-s-gov-grants-verisign-com-price-hikes/

“Content Neutral Operations. The parties agree that Verisign will operate the .com registry in a content neutral manner and that Verisign will participate in ICANN processes that promote the development of content neutral policies for the operation of the DNS.”

Removal of the Maximum Price restriction under Section 7.3(d)(i) (Maximum Price) of the .com Registry Agreement, which by way of clarification will continue to be subject to Section 3(a) of Amendment 32 setting forth the standard and process for removal;
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amendment_35.pdf

I haven’t studied this document, but it seems that “premium domains” like one word .com’s, couldn’t Verisign figure a way to invent some new pricing tiers to be introduced like the new gtlds?

 

[offthehandle]

Section 6: Quarterly Reporting of Lobbying Activities - Organizations must report expenses as they are incurred, though payment may be made later.

Here is the latest public 3rd Quarter earnings info:

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/...Key=600-201810251605BIZWIRE_USPRX____BW5843-1

And some older articles.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/verisign-slims-down-but-troubling-lawsuit-remains-2010-02-11

In 2010 in above article as reported by Marketwatch they had some issues.

“The domain name business remains the subject of a lawsuit originally filed in 2005, by a group calling itself the Coalition for ICANN Transparency - arguing that VeriSign's deal with ICANN violates antitrust laws, while artificially inflating prices.

The lawsuit had been dismissed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed course and potentially re-started the case on June 5 of last year. That day, VeriSign's stock price started a slide from over $23 to roughly $18, a 22% decline.”

“VeriSign has also spent heavily on preserving its influence among Washington, D.C. decision makers. The company reported spending roughly $2.4 million last year lobbying Congress, the White House, a Commerce Department agency and others on issues including "domain name registration and pricing," and "issues related to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers," according to public records.”

An earlier article in 2009 on lobbying.

https://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/05/domain-name-companies-spend-2m-lobbying-washington/

 

[Rick Ace]

The 10-year binding contract, which the offerent agrees to, ensures this. Subject closed... for the next 10 years! Then, ten years on, there is a new tender, covering a period of another 10 years.

That would be great. Though, consumers would have to put one heck of a fight to get such a contract. It's unlikely any capitalist corporation would want such an agreement.

 

[offthehandle]

This is a website to determine lobbying expenditures and other details.

Here is Verisign History:

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000022307&cycle=2018

NOTE: All lobbying expenditures on this page come from the Senate Office of Public Records. Data for the most recent year was downloaded on October 24, 2018.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]

 

[Domains - Wanted]

That would be great. Though, consumers would have to put one heck of a fight to get such a contract. It's unlikely any capitalist corporation would want such an agreement.

Why wouldn't they want it? Guaranteed business for 10 years?

 

[urlurl]

well they should be careful if they do increase prices too much, if they do, i can see a lot more names dropping and less names being registered. the net effect will bring in more per name, but less overall total dollars...

 

[Domains - Wanted]

well they should be careful if they do increase prices too much, if they do, i can see a lot more names dropping and less names being registered. the net effect will bring in more per name, but less overall total dollars...

Not really. At least not while HugeDomains' bots keep dropcatching anything that moves. Half the names I drop after first year of registration, all handregs, wind up with HugeDomains. They'll drop them, eventually. In the meantime, great business for Verisign!

 

[tonyk2000]

At least not while HugeDomains' bots keep dropcatching anything that moves

Is there anything that prevents Verisign from providing bulk discounts to some customers (registrars)? Especially if a particular registrar is also a bulk registrant at the same time, and is therefore able to regulate drop/renewal ratio for his domains of different quality (with annual renewal price in mind).

 

[Domains - Wanted]

Is there anything that prevents Verisign from providing bulk discounts to some customers (registrars)?

Nothing... except good business sense

HugeDomains' and others' business model makes them dependent on Verisign, and not the other way around. HD's (assumedly) million+ domains, impressive as that might be to you and me, is still but a drop in a bucket for Verisign, with 130+ million registered .com's

 

[Kate]

It's good to be a monopoly.
Verisign also sold its security business to Neustar recently, they are now focusing on naming/Internet services. The .com registry is such a cash cow.
Told you we are in the wrong business. We should be buying VRSN shares like Warren Buffett, this guy knows what he is doing.
But there is hope, Icann could in theory still act in the interest of registrants for a change

 

[domainer111]

Okay so is it definitely 7% four times within a six year contract?

If it is, does that compound? So is it 7% on top of previously increased 7%?

If so, that will completely change volume domaining.

The five day chart from Verisign says it all.

 

[Donmarick]

Yeah for small amout of domains is nothing special but for big holders sounds awafull. So for 2 years from now there will be not any increase ?

 

[campout]

Here's a crazy chart. VRSN got up to $250 in 2000 during the dot-com bubble before imploding back to $5, and despite great performance ever since it's still 40% below it's 2000 peak.

So for 2 years from now there will be not any increase ?

I think that's correct.

 

[Mister Liquid]

Here's a crazy chart. VRSN got up to $250 in 2000 during the dot-com bubble before imploding back to $5, and despite great performance ever since it's still 40% below it's 2000 peak.

Show attachment 102629



I think that's correct.

Look at the drop in volume over the years too. Wow.