[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] I am leaving the At-Large, as it appears to me to be captured

John Laprise jlaprise at gmail.com
Fri May 3 14:57:57 UTC 2019


I failed to anticipate the effects of Trump on non profits. Mea culpa.

Otherwise, I'll let my long history in the Internet community speak for
itself.

Have a great day

Sent from my Pixel 3XL

John Laprise, Ph.D.

On Fri, May 3, 2019, 9:42 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> The election was in 2016, John. The incorporation date, as per the
> prior email was in 2017:
>
> "Incorporation Date (Domestic) 02/14/2017"
>
> Blaming Trump is quite a story. Not credible. It's been more than 2
> years, John, since Trump was elected.
>
> Regardless, IRS Form 990 and/or Annual Report, John. Thanks for not
> sharing it, and demonstrating that you're just 1 user (who should be
> participating as an individual), and that no due diligence is done by
> At Large.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:26 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Let me address that:
> >
> > The AIU doesn't receive any money. So no IRS forms. We're strictly
> incorporated in IL. I founded the AIU after I returned from an expat in
> Qatar. I was and am passionate about the Internet and thought/think I had a
> good idea. thanks
> >
> > Then we had the 2016 presidential election.
> >
> > Progressive, liberal activists in the US pretty much dropped everything
> to fight Trump, sucking the oxygen out of the room for non-political
> efforts like the AIU. Coincidentally, it also absorbed my time too. While
> the website hasn't been posted to in a while, we continue sharing relevant
> content on social media platforms which is our outreach at the moment.
> >
> > Oh, I also needed gainful employment to pay the bills, got married, and
> am now buying a house (yay!).
> >
> > Oh, and I work as a market research manager for a large non-internet
> related membership organization making me a professional community
> listener. Taken together with my PhD in Media Technology and Society from
> Northwestern, I quite a good understanding of end users.
> >
> > Thanks George.
> >
> > Does that answer your question?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Pixel 3XL
> >
> > John Laprise, Ph.D.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019, 9:02 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Funny that you would respond, John. Maybe you should devote more time
> >> to your ALS, whose website hasn't been updated since 2016!
> >>
> >> https://www.aiu-us.org/
> >>
> >> It's clear At Large does very little due diligence when allowing ALSes
> >> to join. This isn't a role playing game of Dungeons and Dragons, where
> >> folks pretend to represent billions of internet users.
> >>
> >>  Why don't you share your organization's IRS Form 990 with the group,
> >> as it's nowhere to be found on public sources such as:
> >>
> >> http://foundationcenter.org/find-funding/990-finder
> >>
> >> Your organization apparently does exist, at least:
> >>
> >> https://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController
> >>
> >>  File Number 71069249
> >>  Entity Name ASSOCIATION OF INTERNET USERS
> >>  Status ACTIVE  Entity Type CORPORATION
> >>  Type of Corp NOT-FOR-PROFIT  Incorporation Date (Domestic) 02/14/2017
> >>   State ILLINOIS  Agent Name JOHN LAPRISE  Agent Change Date 02/14/2017
> >>   Agent Street Address 1425 ASHLAND AVE #301  President Name & Address
> >>  Agent City DES PLAINES  Secretary Name & Address  Agent Zip 60016
> >> Duration Date PERPETUAL  Annual Report Filing Date 01/31/2019  For
> >> Year 2019
> >>
> >> Why not show your annual report or IRS Form 990, John, to demonstrate
> >> the great outreach you're doing on behalf of all the internet users
> >> you purport to represent?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> George Kirikos
> >> 416-588-0269
> >> http://www.leap.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:51 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I appreciate your concerns George and to some degree share them. Your
> concerns were heard, weighed, and noted. In the end however it was clear
> that the position you advanced was not widely shared.
> >> >
> >> > Departing is your own choice, whatever your rationale and is
> regrettable. Having been active in At Large for many years now, I can say
> that At Large broadly speaking, requires concerted effort over time to
> persuade as well as offering a global sensibility. You spoken in
> yesterday's CPWG meeting about the importance of principles. I agree. At
> Large's principle is advancing the interests of end users writ large. The
> expression of that principle can and does change over time and depending on
> the contributions of participants.
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my Pixel 3XL
> >> >
> >> > John Laprise, Ph.D.
> >> > ALAC Vice-Chair (Policy)
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, May 3, 2019, 8:00 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi folks
> >> >>
> >> >> As I discussed on the CPWG mailing list:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-May/001180.html
> >> >>
> >> >> I was strongly concerned about capture of the At Large, and my
> >> >> concerns have been ignored and dismissed, given the statement that
> >> >> ALAC sent to the .org public comments yesterday, after the CPWG call.
> >> >>
> >> >> I submitted my own additional comment a few minutes ago, arguing why
> >> >> that statement should be given little weight (see below).
> >> >>
> >> >> As such, I am now leaving the At Large. Please remove me from all the
> >> >> relevant mailing lists and notification lists.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sincerely,
> >> >>
> >> >> George Kirikos
> >> >> 416-588-0269
> >> >> http://www.leap.com/
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:48 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Submitted by: George Kirikos
> >> >> > Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
> >> >> > Website: http://www.leap.com/
> >> >> > Date: May 3, 2019
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In addition to our prior comments (below), we would like to point
> out
> >> >> > that the submission by ALAC at:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003297.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (and in similar comments for .biz, .info, .asia)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > should be given very little weight, as it appears to be
> >> >> > unrepresentative of the billions of users of the internet (which At
> >> >> > Large purports to represent). Rather, it reflects the views of a
> small
> >> >> > number of individuals, many of whom have current or past
> associations
> >> >> > with Internet Society or its various chapters.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This was pointed out by me in the thread at:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-May/001180.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > of the Consolidated Policy Working Group of the At Large:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ----- start of snippet --------
> >> >> > Look at the actual history of this matter. At the last meeting, it
> >> >> > was decided that At-Large would not be making a statement. What
> "new
> >> >> > information" exists since that decision, to justify change? There
> is
> >> >> > none, other than the fact that thousands of others have made
> comments,
> >> >> > and so presumably some of ISOC's friends and/or allies feel the
> need
> >> >> > to help ISOC. That's not a good justification at all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Remember, Jonathan even wrote on Friday:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001099.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Let's table this discussion until we can have a more thorough
> >> >> > exploration of the issues. Email is a terrible way in which to have
> >> >> > such a discussion. "
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But then some people ignored that, wanting to relitigate a decided
> >> >> > issue. And, many of those people were present at last week's
> meeting
> >> >> > too, so they already had their chance. Again, what new information
> did
> >> >> > they have? None. Did Jonathan rebuke them for not tabling the
> >> >> > discussion? Nope.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Indeed, look at Greg Shatan's email at:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001094.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our
> >> >> > first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second
> >> >> > draft."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That is again entirely consistent with capture.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 5. It's obvious that many folks have some past or present
> connection
> >> >> > to ISOC or one of its chapters, or perhaps even aspirational future
> >> >> > connections with them. e.g. Greg Shatan's is obvious, via the NYC
> >> >> > chapter of ISOC.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maureen Hilyard's SOI:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Maureen+Hilyard+SOI
> >> >> >
> >> >> > mentions the "Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Marita Moll has a history with the Canadian chapter:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.maritamoll.ca/content/about-site
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cheryl Landon-Orr's SOI:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Cheryl+Langdon-Orr+SOI
> >> >> >
> >> >> > mentions "Internet Australia  (IA)  formally known as the Internet
> >> >> > Society of Australia ( ISOC-AU)"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > John Laprise's LinkedIn profile:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise
> >> >> >
> >> >> > mentions "cofounding Qatar's Internet Society chapter" as well as
> >> >> > "Faculty" of Internet Society in May 2014.
> >> >> > ---- end of snippet -----------
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There are even more than those, e.g.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Evan Leibovitch's involvement with the Canadian chapter of the
> Internet Society:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/canadian-chapter-of-internet-society-officially-rises-again/86739
> >> >> >
> >> >> > and Glenn McKnight:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.internetsociety.org/author/mcknight/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "co-founder of Internet Society Canada Chapter and held positions
> for
> >> >> > three years as Treasurer, Secretariat and Board member.  In 2017,
> >> >> > Glenn was elected to the Internet Society Board of Trustees by the
> >> >> > Chapters for a 3-year term from 2017-2020."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Indeed, at yesterday's CPWG meeting (where that ALAC position was
> >> >> > finalized for .org), Maureen Hilyard (the penholder for the .asia
> >> >> > statement, and current Chair of ALAC) casually mentioned that she
> was
> >> >> > on the Board of Dot-Asia,. She even circulated her draft to the
> >> >> > Dot-Asia folks for comments to see if there were any problems with
> it!
> >> >> > Apparently no one but myself within the CPWG call yesterday saw how
> >> >> > that would be unusual.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Indeed, Maureen Hilyard is on the Advisory Council of PIR itself:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> https://pir.org/about-us/advisory-council/maureen-hilyard-ngo-ong-cook-islands/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Given the lack of diversity and low participation in At Large, it's
> >> >> > prone to capture (as others have pointed out, in the email I sent
> to
> >> >> > the CPWG mailing list). It's clear to me that the ALAC statement
> is a
> >> >> > product of such capture.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sincerely,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > George Kirikos
> >> >> > 416-588-0269
> >> >> > http://www.leap.com/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Submitted by: George Kirikos
> >> >> > > Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
> >> >> > > Website: http://www.leap.com/
> >> >> > > Date: April 29, 2019
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > We write to oppose the proposed contract renewals posted by
> ICANN for
> >> >> > > the .org, .info, .biz and .asia contracts, as posted for public
> >> >> > > comments at:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en
> >> >> > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/info-renewal-2019-03-18-en
> >> >> > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/biz-renewal-2019-04-03-en
> >> >> > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/asia-renewal-2019-03-27-en
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > While our arguments are focused on the .org TLD, to the extent
> that
> >> >> > > the contractual terms are similar for the other TLDs, we repeat
> the
> >> >> > > same comments for .info, .biz and .org. Indeed, while the
> majority of
> >> >> > > the thousands of public comments to date have focused on .org,
> ICANN
> >> >> > > should read those comments as also applying to .info, .biz and
> .org,
> >> >> > > even if the submitters did not explicitly submit their comments
> to all
> >> >> > > 4 email addresses.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 1. We support and endorse the great groundswell of opposition as
> >> >> > > expressed in the thousands of thoughtful public comments opposed
> to
> >> >> > > these proposed agreements. It is shocking that ICANN did not
> learn its
> >> >> > > lesson from 2006, when similar massive opposition existed for
> >> >> > > comparable contracts which would have allowed for unlimited fee
> >> >> > > increases:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The proposed contracts are simply unconscionable, and ICANN
> should
> >> >> > > instead simply extend the existing contracts by another 6 or 10
> years,
> >> >> > > rather than make any other changes.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 2. Within the At-Large, we had a video discussion/debate,
> archived at:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://freespeech.com/2019/04/10/impact-of-the-urs-and-unlimited-fee-increases-for-registrants-in-org-info-biz-and-asia/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://youtu.be/KW3I1oFGbv0
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > where many of the points below are discussed, and I include them
> here
> >> >> > > by reference.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 3. We particularly agree with the comments and/or blogs
> submitted/posted by:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > a) Nat Cohen / Telepathy:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003067.html
> >> >> > >
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_eliminating_caps_on_legacy_domains/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > b) NameCheap:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > c) Zak Muscovitch / Internet Commerce Association:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/000006.html
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > d) Jay Chapman / Digimedia:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/002967.html
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > e) Andrew Allemann:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003091.html
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 4. It should be noted that in the past ICANN trumpeted lower
> fees as
> >> >> > > one of its main achievements. For example, the testimony of ICANN
> >> >> > > General Counsel and Secretary John Jeffrey at:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg30233/html/CHRG-109hhrg30233.htm
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "STATEMENT OF JOHN JEFFREY, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED
> NAMES
> >> >> > > AND NUMBERS (ICANN)
> >> >> > > ...
> >> >> > >  Among ICANN's main achievements are the following:
> >> >> > > ...
> >> >> > >     Market competition. Market competition for generic top-level
> >> >> > > domain registrations established by ICANN has ****lowered
> >> >> > > domain name cost in some instances as much as 80 percent with
> savings
> >> >> > > for both consumers and businesses.****" (emphasis added)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > It is not consistent with those past statements for ICANN to
> abrogate
> >> >> > > its responsibilities, and permit unlimited fee increases by
> registry
> >> >> > > operators. Unlimited fee increases are not in the public
> interest, and
> >> >> > > do not even attempt to balance the needs of registrants against
> those
> >> >> > > of registry operators. ICANN was handed a responsibility to
> balance
> >> >> > > the interest of affected stakeholders when it achieved (against
> our
> >> >> > > wishes) independence from US government oversight, and it's now
> clear
> >> >> > > that it is not living up to those commitments given such
> one-sided
> >> >> > > contracts that have been presented here for public comment.
> Unlimited
> >> >> > > fee increases are not balanced, and do not promote stability of
> the
> >> >> > > internet or competition. ICANN is engaging in corporate welfare
> and/or
> >> >> > > crony capitalism through such anti-competitive proposals as are
> here
> >> >> > > before us.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 5. As has been pointed out by others, under competition the cost
> of
> >> >> > > providing registry services (really just the management of a
> central
> >> >> > > database plus the operation of various nameservers) would be
> under USD
> >> >> > > $1.00 per domain name per year. This is evidenced by the .IN
> (India)
> >> >> > > tender, where Neustar beat Afilias with a winning bid of USD
> $0.70 per
> >> >> > > domain name per year (70 cents/domain/yr):
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> http://domainincite.com/23364-afilias-sues-india-to-block-12-million-neustar-back-end-deal
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > A similar competitive tender process happened in France:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.thedomains.com/2012/08/07/afnic-awarded-new-contract-to-run-fr-registry-but-only-after-open-bidding-results-in-reduced-prices/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > where AFNIC had to lower the wholesale fees for .FR domain
> names, and
> >> >> > > the contract was for 5 years.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Similar competitions are held for the .US ccTLD:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/press/2007/Neustar_101907.html
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > You'll note that registry operators do not have presumptive
> renewal in
> >> >> > > those ccTLD contracts, yet are more than willing and able to
> compete
> >> >> > > effectively and make investments. It was a major policy blunder
> of
> >> >> > > ICANN to have agreed in the past to presumptive renewal, a
> decision
> >> >> > > that has had a multi-billion dollar negative impact upon
> registrants,
> >> >> > > compared to a situation where there are regular competitive
> tenders.
> >> >> > > Even the US government has argued for those competitive tenders
> for
> >> >> > > both initial agreements and for renewals of agreements:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > (Ms. Garza's analysis begins on the 3rd page of the PDF, after
> the
> >> >> > > covering letter by Ms. Baker of the NTIA)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The absence of such competitive tenders can only be rectified
> through
> >> >> > > the protective fee caps which have been long established, and
> which
> >> >> > > the registry operators themselves have agreed to since the times
> they
> >> >> > > entered into their respective agreements. If current registry
> >> >> > > operators are not prepared to renew the existing contracts
> (which have
> >> >> > > fee caps in place), then there would be no shortage of other
> >> >> > > prospective registry operators who would be prepared to step in
> and
> >> >> > > replace them (and at a much lower cost, with fee caps in place).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Indeed, ICANN themselves have argued (in court) that such caps
> are
> >> >> > > *pro-competitive*, see:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-reply-on-cfit-26may06-en.pdf
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "....in a single supplier market, price caps are, if anything,
> >> >> > > procompetitive (Mot. at 13-14);"
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > (line 13, page 6 of 15)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 6. We would like to openly make ICANN the following offer: We
> will run
> >> >> > > the .org registry for USD $5 per domain name per year, and keep
> all
> >> >> > > other existing terms the same. [We would then simply subcontract
> it to
> >> >> > > one of the many registry operators who would bid for the job at
> USD $1
> >> >> > > per domain per year or less, and pocket the difference!] This is
> lower
> >> >> > > than the $9.93 per domain name per year that PIR currently
> charges.
> >> >> > > ICANN cannot of course accept this improved deal, even if it
> wanted
> >> >> > > to, because its hands are tied by the foolish decision to agree
> to
> >> >> > > presumptive renewal in the past.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Looking forward, an agreement to permit unlimited fee increases
> in the
> >> >> > > future (far beyond the already generous 10% per year permitted
> >> >> > > increases) would similarly hamper ICANN's ability to negotiate
> future
> >> >> > > "win-win" deals, giving it no negotiating leverage in the
> future, as
> >> >> > > it would have already given away the farm if it entered into this
> >> >> > > proposed agreement.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Agreeing to permit unlimited fee increases is like letting the
> genie
> >> >> > > out of the bottle, as there's no way that registry operators
> will ever
> >> >> > > agree to voluntarily undo such a change in the future.
> Presumptive
> >> >> > > renewal means that registry operators can safely ignore any
> future
> >> >> > > attempts by ICANN to renegotiate. This is why these contractual
> >> >> > > changes are so important, because they'll be impossible to fix
> in the
> >> >> > > future (without giving up even more to registry operators, e.g.
> via a
> >> >> > > buyout or something). This alone should be reason for caution.
> Given
> >> >> > > there's no urgency to making a change (i.e. registry operators
> have
> >> >> > > *falling* costs, not increasing costs), then the status quo
> should
> >> >> > > prevail.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 6. Some have suggested that the Internet Society and/or PIR would
> >> >> > > never raise fees by a large amount. However, "hope is not a
> strategy."
> >> >> > > Past performance is no guarantee of the future. Leadership can
> change,
> >> >> > > as can priorities/missions. It's clear from section 7.5 of the
> the
> >> >> > > draft contract itself:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18mar19-en.pdf
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > that ISOC/PIR could simply sell or assign the registry contract
> to
> >> >> > > another entity (e.g. Private Equity, just as registry operator
> Donuts
> >> >> > > was sold by its founders), and that new owner/entity could take
> the
> >> >> > > heat for future egregious fee increases. ICANN would not be able
> to
> >> >> > > stop such a deal. Such a sale would allow ISOC to create a huge
> >> >> > > endowment for itself worth billions of dollars, given that .org
> is
> >> >> > > arguably the second most desirable gTLD, after only .com.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 7. The ability to renew a domain name for 10 years is not
> sufficient
> >> >> > > protection for registrants. Eventually the bill will come due,
> and
> >> >> > > nothing can offset the enormous switching costs. Any
> >> >> > > goodwill/links/etc. built up will be reduced to zero, totally
> >> >> > > destroying one's investment in one's web identity that may have
> been
> >> >> > > built up over 20+ years (even longer than ICANN has existed, in
> many
> >> >> > > cases). URLs that have been printed in offline media such as
> books,
> >> >> > > DVDs, etc. can't be updated, thus it's impossible for many to
> simply
> >> >> > > stop renewing after 10 years and switch, as some people will
> still see
> >> >> > > the old URL. E-mails aren't forwarded by the new registrants to
> those
> >> >> > > of past registrants, meaning that all existing email addresses
> can't
> >> >> > > easily transition to a new domain name without risk. Business
> cards
> >> >> > > would need to be reprinted (and can't be "recalled" from past
> >> >> > > recipients). Registrants expect URLs to be permanent, not
> transitory.
> >> >> > > Registrants of legacy gTLDs like com/net/org own their domain
> names,
> >> >> > > and are not temporary tenants (like those in the failed new
> gTLDs).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 8. One of the reasons prospective registrants rationally avoid
> new
> >> >> > > gTLDs is the lack of certainty over potential future fee
> increases. As
> >> >> > > one submission pointed out, they are "leery" of such one-sided
> >> >> > > contracts, and for good reason. Those failures of the new gTLDs
> >> >> > > experiment should not be allowed to contaminate the successful
> and
> >> >> > > proven legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org. Indeed, if there is to be
> any
> >> >> > > harmonization of contracts, the "base agreement" should be that
> of the
> >> >> > > successful .com/net/org TLDs which included fee caps, rather
> than have
> >> >> > > the future be modeled on the the failed new gTLDs program.
> Registrants
> >> >> > > of new gTLDs knew the problems with the lack of price caps, and
> >> >> > > foolishly agreed to them before registration. Changing the rules
> for
> >> >> > > existing registrants of legacy gTLDs is unacceptable, as this
> amounts
> >> >> > > to changing the rules in the middle of the game, rules which
> would
> >> >> > > never have been acceptable to most prior to registration.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > One submission suggested that as each new gTLD matures, or
> reaches a
> >> >> > > critical mass, it should then transition to the legacy
> contracts. That
> >> >> > > was a wise suggestion, to bridge the failed new gTLD program
> with the
> >> >> > > successful legacy gTLDs.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 9. Even ISOC/PIR doesn't enter into such one-sided agreements,
> given
> >> >> > > that its own supplier/subcontractor (Afilias) had to win a
> competitive
> >> >> > > tender to retain the contract for managing the back-end of the
> >> >> > > registry (presumably at an even lower fee than it agreed to
> years ago
> >> >> > > -- fees would be able to be estimated once the relevant IRS Form
> 990
> >> >> > > forms become public).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://domainnamewire.com/2016/02/16/32-million-org-contract-up-for-bids/
> >> >> > >
> https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/14/org-sticks-afilias-backend/
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > It's entirely inconsistent that Internet Society doesn't give
> >> >> > > presumptive renewal and/or permits unlimited fee increases for
> its own
> >> >> > > suppliers, yet wants such things for themselves.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 10. We oppose the ability for the registry operators to
> unilaterally
> >> >> > > create and impose their own mandatory RPMs upon registrants.
> See, for
> >> >> > > example:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-addendum-18mar19-en.pdf
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "Specification 7, § 1 The terms of Section 1 of Specification 7
> are
> >> >> > > hereby amended and restated in their entirety as follows: “Rights
> >> >> > > Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and
> adhere to
> >> >> > > the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this
> >> >> > > Specification. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator
> ******may
> >> >> > > develop and implement RPMs that discourage or prevent
> registration of
> >> >> > > domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal
> rights.******
> >> >> > > Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this
> Specification
> >> >> > > 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry
> >> >> > > Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by
> >> >> > > ICANN-accredited registrars authorized to register names in the
> TLD.”
> >> >> > > (page 6, emphasis added)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > This should be left to the GNSO, to develop only policies that
> have
> >> >> > > consensus, and which balance the needs of both rights holders and
> >> >> > > registrants. For example, suppose PIR (or another registry
> operator)
> >> >> > > was allowed to unilaterally create a RPM on their own which
> allowed
> >> >> > > for complaints to be filed for a fee of $100, but which required
> >> >> > > registrants post a $1 million bond if they wish to file any
> response
> >> >> > > to the complaint. Such a one-sided policy could be created by a
> >> >> > > registry operator under the proposed terms, and would ignore the
> >> >> > > requirement that ICANN policies need to balance the concerns of
> all
> >> >> > > affected stakeholders (including registrants).
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 11. We also oppose the searchable WHOIS, which ignores the
> ongoing
> >> >> > > EPDP on WHOIS:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18mar19-en.pdf
> >> >> > > (page 37)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Registry
> Operator
> >> >> > > must offer a searchable Whois service compliant with the
> requirements
> >> >> > > described in Section 1.10 of Specification 4 of this Agreement."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > as it doesn't properly balance the privacy rights of registrants
> >> >> > > against those who would go on fishing expeditions. A searchable
> WHOIS
> >> >> > > system should only ever be adopted, if and only if the Trademark
> >> >> > > Clearinghouse (TMCH) equally becomes public and searchable, in
> return.
> >> >> > > If the TMCH is kept secret and non-searchable, then the WHOIS
> should
> >> >> > > not be searchable either.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 12. Additional RPMs that were developed for new gTLDs were the
> result
> >> >> > > of bad predictions that were made of massive cybersquatting
> prior to
> >> >> > > the adoption of the program. For example, in testimony before
> the US
> >> >> > > government:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg74251/html/CHRG-112shrg74251.htm
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "First, the immediate costs imposed on business is likely to be
> in the
> >> >> > > multi billions of dollars."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "This Program in aggregate has multi-billion dollar implications
> for
> >> >> > > all marketers, both in the commercial and the nonprofit sectors,
> and
> >> >> > > their brands. It would cause irreparable harm and damage to the
> entire
> >> >> > > online business community. It would throw the domain name
> universe
> >> >> > > into substantial confusion for both marketers and consumers."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "So there are billions of dollars that are going to be spent and
> it's
> >> >> > > not going to be providing a use for the economy."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "And when we're talking about billions of dollars here, when
> we're
> >> >> > > talking about companies with 3,000 or more brands, even big
> companies
> >> >> > > will be facing really large expenses. So this is a very, very
> >> >> > > significant economic issue for this country and for the world."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "An unlimited expansion of the TLDs will cost the business
> community
> >> >> > > billions of dollars."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "The unlimited expansion of TLDs would dramatically increase the
> cost
> >> >> > > and complexity for trademark holders to protect their rights. The
> >> >> > > immediate cost imposed on businesses is likely to be in the
> billions
> >> >> > > of dollars."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "We believe ICANN's gTLD program would impose billions of
> dollars in
> >> >> > > unnecessary costs on the restaurant industry at a time when
> restaurant
> >> >> > > operators are looking forward to investing in their businesses
> and
> >> >> > > hiring employees after the worst recession in decades."
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > These predictions exaggerated and overestimated the actual risk
> that
> >> >> > > was realized by the launch of new gTLDs. Thus, the justification
> for
> >> >> > > the adoption of the URS and other RPMs turned out to be false
> >> >> > > predictions, and should now be undone. They were never intended
> for,
> >> >> > > nor should be imposed upon, registrants of legacy gTLDs.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Prospective registry operators at the time were willing to
> accept such
> >> >> > > terms, as the trademark lobby threatened to thwart and delay the
> >> >> > > release of new gTLDs unless their demands were met. Registry
> operators
> >> >> > > were blinded by dollar signs in their eyes, for example,
> predictions
> >> >> > > by Name.Space:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "Name.Space, whose business has a potential value of over 1
> billion
> >> >> > > dollars, has been deprived the opportunity to fully launch and
> operate
> >> >> > > its portfolio of gTLD properties under what we believe is the
> most
> >> >> > > responsible, fair, and ethical practices yet to be employed in
> the
> >> >> > > commercial domain name industry." (same link as above for
> testimony)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 13. Given that the RPM PDP of the GNSO is actively reviewing the
> URS,
> >> >> > > including determining whether or not it should be a consensus
> policy,
> >> >> > > no steps should be taken by ICANN staff and/or the registry
> operators
> >> >> > > to unilaterally impose it upon registrants. Indeed, there are
> numerous
> >> >> > > proposals to actively change the URS (including a proposal to
> >> >> > > explicitly eliminate it), see:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > (click the "Individual URS Proposal" tab to see the 33 individual
> >> >> > > proposals, 14 of them from us)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The current URS is deeply flawed. For example of just one of the
> >> >> > > defects, currently complaints are required to be in English
> (unlike
> >> >> > > the language rules for the UDRP, where complaints must be in the
> >> >> > > language of the registration agreement, which varies by
> registrar).
> >> >> > > Thus, many registrants defending a URS dispute have no idea what
> the
> >> >> > > actual URS complaint is about, if they do not understand
> English. This
> >> >> > > is particularly egregious, given that new gTLDs are most popular
> in
> >> >> > > China.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Such flawed RPMs whose creation was rushed before the launch of
> new
> >> >> > > gTLDs, and which are tilted in favour of large multinational
> >> >> > > companies, need to be reviewed and corrected before they are ever
> >> >> > > adopted for legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 14. In conclusion, ICANN's proposed contracts represent a
> failure of
> >> >> > > the multi-stakeholder model, and are instead evidence that ICANN
> has
> >> >> > > been captured by registry operators. ICANN claims these
> contracts are
> >> >> > > the result of a negotiation, yet what did registrants receive in
> >> >> > > return for these contractual changes? We received absolutely
> nothing
> >> >> > > in return, except for higher fees and higher regulatory burdens
> (via
> >> >> > > the imposition of the URS), with all the gains being received by
> the
> >> >> > > registry operators at the expense of registrants. That's not a
> >> >> > > negotiation -- that's a giveaway.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > We expect and demand that ICANN and the registry will simply
> extend
> >> >> > > the current contracts, rather than enter into these one-sided
> >> >> > > arrangements.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Sincerely,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > George Kirikos
> >> >> > > 416-588-0269
> >> >> > > http://www.leap.com/
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> CPWG mailing list
> >> >> CPWG at icann.org
> >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20190503/5f7918de/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