[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Brainstorming

[Roberto Gaetano]

I am a bit worried about proposals like denying renewal to registrations that do not pass the litmus test of virginity. Even before PIR took over .org there was no strict requirement about being no-profit. Of course, this could be enforced now for new registrations, but to deny renewal would be most unfair.
One of the points we raise constantly in connection with the price raise is that registrants are locked in, and will have huge switching costs. The same will apply for a commercial registrant who has registered a domain name with .org maybe because the name he/she wanted was already taken in .com, or maybe for a much simpler reason, that she/he trusted PIR more than Verisign considering the record of good practices. If PIR denies renewal to a person like this, it will instantly lose the reputation earned with years of good behaviour. We might have a “pure” non-commercial domain space, but one that few would trust enough to be willing to be part of it.
Cheers,
Roberto





> On 24.11.2019, at 18:54, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
> 
> For sure. That said, my guess is that even a liberal interpretation of "non-profit" would be far more conservative than the status quo. We could identify the jurisdictions that actually have that distinction and  suggest that renewals won't be granted to those who are not recognized in one of those jurisdiction. That new registrations are granted only to those who are. That the secondary market is capped at cost recovery. I mean, there's only so much we can do with a tiny piece of the work of a non-profit but these things might be possible.
> From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 12:43 PM
> To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano at gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Brainstorming
>  
> The challenge would be to come up with an objective, and readily applied, method to determine who qualifies as "for profit" and who does not.  Sure there are lots of crystal clear cases; the challenge is sorting out the borderline ones. 
> 
> Bill Jouris 
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Zuck
> <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20191124/54561f64/attachment-0001.html>