The US Senate is discussing domain names today.
The US Senate discussed domain names today, including arguments against VeriSign’s ability to hike prices 7% per annum. A CNET article highlights the discussions:
Sen. Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, questioned why VeriSign should have what critics have called a guaranteed perpetual income stream from .com domain registrations. The company currently receives $6 per domain, or about $323.4 million a year, from .com fees alone.
In March, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, granted VeriSign the right to raise prices it charges registrars like GoDaddy and TuCows for .com domains by 7 percent annually. A coalition of registrars has filed a federal lawsuit to block the deal.
Among those in Washington to testify was Christine Jones, general counsel for GoDaddy. She argued that, after the .net contract was put out to competitive bidding, the fee VeriSign collects for .net registrations fell.
Although I agree that the price hikes aren’t warranted, it’s easy for VeriSign to poke holes in GoDaddy’s arguments. If this is about helping consumers, why didn’t GoDaddy reduce the prices of its .net domain names when VeriSign lowered the wholesale cost? In fact, GoDaddy charges more for .net domains than it does for .com.
Roger says
This is a very interesting debate and I am happy to see you are bringing it up. Verisign has been an outright bully for far too long in this Industry.
However, your last remark about GD charging more for .net’s rings hollow. Please cite this reference with a link to the innacuraccy. When I go to their site it seems that .net and .coms are the same rate. Please let me know where my misunderstanding has occured.
Editor says
.com = $8.95
.net = $8.99
It’s not much, but it should be about $1.50 less than a .com if GoDaddy was passing savings on to the consumer.