[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] renewal of .org registry

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon Apr 29 15:42:28 UTC 2019


Some more grist to the mill......the USDoJ argument referred - and should
be accessible in the pdf - is not loading but I do have a copy from way
back, if y'all cannot get to it.
https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/29/the-economics-of-domain-name-prices/


-Carlton




==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:20 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Agree. I think the argument that we WANT higher prices is much stronger
> than trying to predict outcomes.
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2019 9:09:33 AM
> *To:* Jonathan Zuck
> *Cc:* Bastiaan Goslings; Roberto Gaetano; CPWG
> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] renewal of .org registry
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Thank you, interesting:
>
>
> > On 29 Apr 2019, at 12:32, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think you're quite right to ask for a rationale for removing the price
> caps and suggesting that any price hike might be minimal doesn't scratch
> that itch. One argument that has been made is that we want the contracts to
> be normalized. There are more obligations placed in the new gTLDs including
> PICs, RPMs, etc. that we want to become standard across all gTLDs.
> >
> > However, the strongest, albeit counterintuitive argument for the removal
> of price caps is that we actually WANT higher prices. It became obvious to
> the CCT Review Team that the caps represent a price point with which it is
> difficult for new entrants to compete and that an increase in the median
> price of gTLDs would likely be good for competition.
> >
> > Furthermore, Evan made the argument at the end of the CPWG call that
> from an end user perspective, gTLDs we're dramatically underpriced. His
> rationale was that domains should not be commodities. For non-registrant
> end users this has led to more confusion, phishing and fraud. For potential
> registrants this has led to fewer choices in the primary market because
> it's too easy to buy and hold huge portfolios of names and auction them to
> the highest bidder. Finally, for the registrant the issue is the same as
> the end user in that it has led to the registration of many  confusingly
> similar strings allowing for typo squatting and other more nefarious uses.
> >
> > So while it might be hard to wrap our minds around, an increase in the
> median price of gTLDs would very likely lead to a decrease in the average
> price and the cost to maintain one.
>
>
> I understand your (Evan’s?) line of reasoning, have heard it before, and I
> do not doubt its validity. However I assume the ‘dramatically underpriced
> gTLDs’ here are not .org and .net, right? But gTDLs from the new rounds.
> Which might imply the need for a price floor.
>
> Anyway. If it does apply to .org I do not understand how we can argue for
> removing the price cap because it would be a good thing if the registry fee
> for of a domain significantly increases, like you say, while on the other
> hand suggesting that people should not be concerned because an expected
> price increase will be minimal and therefore has no impact on usage.
>
> regards
> Bastiaan
>
>
>
> >
> > From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 1:57:30 AM
> > To: Roberto Gaetano
> > Cc: CPWG
> > Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] renewal of .org registry
> >
> > Thanks, Roberto
> >
> > (I am jumping into this quite late, have not read the renewal proposal,
> and have been following the discussion from a distance.)
> >
> > Pragmatically speaking I share your feelings with regard to 'registries
> that are responsible and are not going to do things that I would qualify as
> “silly”, like proceed with an exceptional raise od price’, however it seems
> to me that would only be applicable after the fact. Same for the expected
> limited 'effect of the raise of the price of a .org domain name on NGOs and
> small non-profits’.
> >
> > IMO it does not argue for nor justifies removing the price cap in the
> .org Registry Agreement. I have not seen anyone explain _why_ this in
> itself would be beneficial. Unless I missed something.
> >
> > regards,
> > Bastiaan
> >
> >
> > ***  Please note that this communication is confidential, legally
> privileged, and subject to a disclaimer:
> https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer  ***
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 29 Apr 2019, at 00:13, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, here is my comment.
> > > Just to be clear, I am not submitting any “official” comment, but
> would like to point out a couple of elements that have been touched in this
> discussion.
> > > As disclosure, but you all probably know that, I am a member of the
> PIR Board and a member of the EURALO Board, so my point of view might well
> be affected by these roles I play. However, I would like to speak in my
> capacity of domain registrant.
> > > I do own several domain names, all of them under .org or .eu. I am not
> at all afraid about potential raise of price of neither, because in both
> cases I do believe that these names are managed by registries that are
> responsible and are not going to do things that I would qualify as “silly”,
> like proceed with an exceptional raise od price. In the case of PIR, I
> would like to point out that the registry had the possibility, already
> under the current contract, to raise prices yearly - but has done it only
> in a small number of cases. Every time there has been a raise the matter
> has been discussed thoroughly by the Board, who has analysed the pros and
> cons, taking into account the potential benefits, the impact on the market,
> the impact on the image of the company. I don’t understand what would let
> us assume that, just because the new contract will give this possibility,
> PIR would change the behaviour it had over years and proceed to unmotivated
> raises, moreover if of unreasonable amount. I personally believe that to
> consider this as a possibility is disingenuous to say the least.
> > > A second point is the effect of the raise of the price of a .org
> domain name on NGOs and small non-profits. Do we really think that for
> creating and maintaining an Internet presence the yearly fee for a domain
> name plays a relevant role?
> > > The other criticism I have heard is about feeding ISOC - for instance,
> it has been said that more money to ISOC has resulted in increase in staff.
> This is probably true, but what really matters is what ISOC does for the
> Internet community - and in particular for underserved regions or users. A
> large amount of money goes to finance the IETF: my question is whether
> folks would prefer to have less funding to the IETF and therefore obliging
> the standardisation body to rely on contribution by the industry to develop
> standards? Would that really be better than having a couple of bucks of
> contribution by NGOs on their domain name - which, incidentally, is a
> rounding error in terms of cost for the IT infrastructure - and this even
> assuming that PIR would raise the price in the future, which is not at all
> a sure thing? Another question that I would ask is whether people know
> about projects, financed by ISOC, like the Tusheti Project that has brought
> the internet in a region in Georgia that was isolated from the rest of the
> country because of the difficulty of connecting it? Again, this is possible
> because some of the money that registrants pay for a .org domain name goes
> to financing projects like these. Of course, to coordinate more activities
> requires more staff. So what?
> > > Last but not least, my personal opinion is that moving to a situation
> where the whole gTLD galaxy ends up in having the same contract provisions
> would be a good thing in a globalized market. I am much more worried about
> the registries that are not subject to common rules, like ccTLDs, who can
> for instance use practices banned by SSAC like the wildcard, rather than
> having a handful of “legacy” TLDs compliant with the contract that
> everybody else has. But, as I said, this is just my personal opinion as an
> Internet user and domain name registrant.
> > > Best regards,
> > > Roberto
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 26.04.2019, at 16:17, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thank you Roberto.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, 1:51 AM Roberto Gaetano, <
> roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi Jacqueline, and all.
> > >> I would love to be able to comply with your request. I do indeed have
> my own opinion, and in the coming weekend - I am now under pressure for
> other things - I will express it.
> > >> However, as many of you know, the PIR Board has passed a motion to
> remove me as Board Chair in summer 2018, so I am under the impression that
> I am not well positioned to act as “speaker" for the PIR Board.
> > >> This said, I promise to speak up, with the caveat that I will comment
> on the content of the agreement and the impact (from my point of view) on
> users and non-for-profit organization, not on anything else.
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Roberto
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 26.04.2019, at 12:56, Jacqueline Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Maureen, well said.
> > >>> I would love to hear from the PIR Board as to their take on this.
> > >>> Jacqueline
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 3:48 PM Maureen Hilyard <
> maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> I am against any price changes being allowed for legacy domains and
> I know that the DotAsia Board hasn't authorised any price hikes and we
> don't have a cap. The recent suggestions of price caps have provided focus
> on these so that there is a little bit of scaremongering (or "raising
> awareness" as George prefers to call it) going on I suspect.
> > >>>
> > >>>   .org is used by NGOs who would be sorely affected if the cost of
> the domain rose significantly.  Interestingly Im on the PIR Advisory
> Committee and we haven't been notified by the PIR Board of the implications
> are of a price cap for .org or what their intentions are.
> > >>>
> > >>> Maureen
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:17 AM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
> wrote:
> > >>> Further to our discussions this week re: renewal of .org registry
> with removal of price cap -- it appears that there is a well organized
> campaign going on out there to scare people about potential rate hikes.
> That probably accounts for all those opposition letters we saw posted on
> the site that George Kirikos was referring to.
> > >>>
> > >>> See blog below:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Service_DomPriceIncrease_20190425
> > >>> Marita
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190429/2053ddff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list