Of course you'll be able to afford it. Because if you can't, you'll find that another registry is willing to contractually obligate itself to predictable and reasonable price increases tied to some rational indicator.

I'm sure that there must be a registry that has already stated this. Oh, wait, there is! IOD's .Web registry stated this in it's still-pending application. Imagine that.

But the lock in of identity-branding makes switching TLDs difficult and costly, at best. If I had built and advertised a business around, say, bret.net, I'd really have no choice than to renew at whatever the registry wanted, even if the price were $1000/yr.

But I certainly agree with your primary point: unregulated prices means that you need increased registry-level competition.

Here's another way to look at the removal of the price cap: the clock is now ticking on the introduction of new gTLDs. They need to be in place by January 1, 2007.

They need to be in place by January 1, 2007.

Suits me. Where do I sign up?

2007 is an important year for VeriSign in that .com comes up for renewal. Although it is presumptive renewal for .com, VeriSign is worried that they will get pressure from the ICANN and the Internet community to lower their pricing for .com (which now is $6 and brings in over $200 million in revenue). In order to avoid the pressure on lowering the pricing for .com to be comparable with the new .net pricing (which would make their stock tumble), I believe in 2007, they will raise the price of .net to be comparable with .com (if not $.75 higher to compensate for the ICANN fee). This way, when they refuse to lower the pricing for .com (or raise it $.75), they will say that the pricing for .com is the same as .net and therefore will preserve the higher .com price.

This is not about .net pricing, but merely retaining their .com franchise pricing and keeping their investors happy.

With respect to the RFP, I believe this clause in the contract is a slap in the face to all of the other bidders that proposed pricing that would stay consistent throughout the term. It is yet another example of how market power rears its ugly head and where ICANN, having the leverage, chose to give it away. In addition, it is yet another example of where ICANN has given advantageous provisions to the existing incumbent while at the same time refused to give it to the newer entrants.

However, ICANN chose VeriSign, and a number of registrars backed that selection. So, I guess as the saying goes, those that make their beds have to lie in it (or something like that).

By the way, that comment was filed in my personal capacity and does not reflect any official position of my company. I have to make that disclaimer in case anyone is reading this.