[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Yet Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal to also cover .BIZ and .INFO Renewals

Greg Shatan greg at isoc-ny.org
Wed May 1 20:10:08 UTC 2019


PIR has just posted “An Open Letter to the .ORG Community” on its blog:
https://pir.org/news-events/blog/
https://pir.org/an-open-letter-to-the-org-community/

Full text below (apologies for light color):

 Posted on May 1st, 2019

Dear .ORG Community:

Now that the ICANN public comment period has expired on the proposed .ORG
Registry Agreement renewal, we would like to respond to some concerns that
have been raised about moving .ORG to the standard registry agreement.

It was important for us to fully understand the opinions and insights
offered to ensure we were as inclusive as possible with our response to
you. It was equally important to us to preserve the integrity of the ICANN
public comment process. We didn’t want our response to shape or impact any
of the important and critical discussions around the proposed agreement. It
is now time to respond to you – our .ORG Community.

We Stand Beside You

The .ORG Community always is considered in every decision we make here at
Public Interest Registry. Rest assured, we will not raise prices
unreasonably.  In fact, we currently have no specific plans for any price
increases for .ORG. We simply are moving to the standard registry agreement
with all of its applicable provisions that already is in place for more
than 1,200 other top-level domain extensions.

Under the current .ORG Registry Agreement, Public Interest Registry has had
the ability to annually raise prices 10% per year. Despite that ability, we
have not raised our prices for the last three years.

We also want to mention that you, our end users, are protected in the
registry agreement in case of any sensible future price increases. You
would receive six-months’ notice of any increase from your registrar (the
company where you registered your domain) with the ability to lock in your
pricing at the then current rate for the next 10 years without any price
fluctuation. Also, keep in mind that .ORG is constrained by the competitive
market; we cannot dramatically increase prices for .ORG, as we recognize
and understand that both our .ORG end users and our .ORG registrars would
turn away from .ORG.

To our valued registrar partners, we stand behind you and recognize that a
dramatic price increase for .ORG would adversely impact you and your
ability to effectively work with .ORG registrants. Such an increase is not
in your interest, and that is another reason it is not in our interests
either. We appreciate the constructive and thoughtful comments we received
from our registrar friends on this front.

We are Mission Based, Like the .ORG Community

Public Interest Registry is the non-profit registry operator behind .ORG.
We are different. We are mission based and not every decision is a
financial one; we are not just driven by the “bottom line.”

It is important to note what Public Interest Registry does with the funds
it raises through .ORG registrations. More than 50 cents of every dollar
that currently comes into Public Interest Registry already goes directly to
fund the Internet Society <https://www.internetsociety.org/> and its
incredible work <https://www.internetsociety.org/key-issues/>. If there are
any sensible future price increases, obviously no proceeds would go towards
bolstering Public Interest Registry’s share price (remember, we are a
nonprofit), but instead would fund projects that do good work for the
Internet, such as providing a more accessible and more secure Internet
around the world.

Public Interest Registry has served as the Registry Operator for .ORG for
more than 15 years, and .ORG is what it is today because of you.  PIR is
extraordinarily proud of our .ORGs and your good work, and we will never
betray the trust that you have put into .ORG and us. Our stewardship of
.ORG will continue in the exact same thoughtful and responsible manner as
we have conducted ourselves to this point.

Thank you,

The PIR Team



On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:04 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> Thanks Justine and Greg for putting together this document which I think
> is excellent. Whatever the massaging to finalize item 3 below, in the end,
> it honestly represents our discussions. Grateful to you both for this work.
>
> Marita
> On 5/1/2019 11:31 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the
> CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals).
> So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every
> one of them.
>
> Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request
> for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request
> regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost)
> completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft
> (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say
> "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
>
> 1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft
> statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
>
> 2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in
> support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have
> since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other
> aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out
> under section (I) of the copy.
>
> 3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different
> opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a
> deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II)
> is incomplete because:-
> (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group
> supporting removing price caps.
> (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer
> removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study
> or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of
> fairness.
>
> As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in
> yellow highlights for ease of locating.
>
> 4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees
> payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and
> for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others
> should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
>
> 5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I
> think is general enough to be relevant.
>
> *I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated
> penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
>
> Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the
> attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the
> relevant wiki workspace:
> https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
>
> Justine Chew
> -----
>
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
>>
>> Jonathan Zuck
>> Executive Director
>> Innovators Network Foundation
>> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
>> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM
>> *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard
>> *Cc:* CPWG
>> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised
>> Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
>>
>> The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find
>> things have gone south. What is the recourse?
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> A few responses to the various earlier emails.
>>
>> @Ricardo, Good point.  I think it makes sense to call for several studies
>> over time, rather than a single study.
>>
>> @Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a
>> conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic.  My apologies. I,
>> for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft.
>> Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested
>> text (which I missed, sadly).  Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
>>
>> Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing
>> the price cap.  As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done.  My
>> thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the
>> domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could
>> be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action.
>> Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be
>> bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and
>> reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and
>> time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis).  A predictive study here may
>> prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and
>> inputs and the novelty of the study.  I also think it’s an unrealistic
>> request.  But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard <
>> maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be
>> required  from this session because the extension we requested closes soon
>> after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do
>> ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be
>> helpful.
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maureen,
>>
>> In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to
>> take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
>>
>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>
>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> I like this version Greg .
>>
>> In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting.  I believe the new version
>> provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented
>> by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as
>> Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study
>> were revealed.
>> I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate
>> .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else
>> that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG
>> renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the
>> list.   I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time,
>> but can't right now.
>>
>> I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the
>> absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this
>> statement to bring that concept in.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> Greg Shatan
>> greg at isoc-ny.org
>> President, ISOC-NY
>> "The Internet is for everyone"
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>> _______________________________________________
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>
>> Working Group direct URL:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>>
>> --
>> Greg Shatan
>> greg at isoc-ny.org
>> President, ISOC-NY
>> "The Internet is for everyone"
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> registration-issues-wg mailing list
>> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

-- 
Greg Shatan
greg at isoc-ny.org
President, ISOC-NY
*"The Internet is for everyone"*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190501/95c2dd75/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list