[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal

[Jonathan Zuck]

I might be wrong about this then. Thanks for the citations George. I've known there was a presumption for renewal but believed there was an out for ICANN in extreme circumstances. Perhaps we need to add language to that part of the contract while we can.

Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

________________________________
From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:33:37 PM
To: CPWG
Cc: Alan Greenberg
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal

Hi folks,

Jonathan's statement that "ICANN is under no obligation to renew" is
not supported by any citation, not supported by history, and not
correct, as one can easily check by reading the draft contract itself:

https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18mar19-en.pdf

"4.2 Renewal. (a) This Agreement will be renewed for successive
periods of ten (10) years upon the expiration of the initial Term set
forth in Section 4.1 and each successive Term, unless:..."

(list circumstances not at ICANN's discretion, e.g. if Registry
operator breaches and doesn't cure that breach, etc.)

Which part of "will be renewed" isn't clear?

Section 4.3 talks about termination, and again it's not at ICANN's discretion.

Combine the above with Section 5.4, which ensures "specific
performance" of the contract, and it's clear that ICANN is under an
obligation to renew:

"5.4 Specific Performance. Registry Operator and ICANN agree that
irreparable damage could occur if any of the provisions of this
Agreement was not performed in accordance with its specific terms.
Accordingly, the parties agree that they each shall be entitled to
seek from the arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction specific
performance of the terms of this Agreement (in addition to any other
remedy to which each party is entitled)."

One need only look at the market cap of Verisign. It wouldn't be so
high if it was reflecting just a 6 year or 10 year contract term. That
presumptive renewal was a major policy blunder by ICANN, as I noted in
my own public comments.

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003178.html

If ICANN wasn't under any obligation to renew, certainly it would have
held competitive tenders by now, which they've never done since
entering into these types of contracts.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:49 AM Jonathan Zuck
<JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.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
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190501/d88e5f13/attachment.html>