[CPWG] PIR/Ethos

[sivasubramanian muthusamy]

Dear Alan,

(With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the
Board, some comments inline)

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board
> of Directors today.
>
> Alan
>
> At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >To: ICANN Board
> >
> >This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect
> >a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a
> >few thoughts.
> >
> >With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was
> >starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and
> >bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of
> >the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans)
> >involved, the odor has started to rise again.
> >
> >When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public
> >relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a
> >number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
> >
> >1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove
> >pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos
> >are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases
> >could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10
> >years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and
> >this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16
> >years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales
> >sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that
> >the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too
> >late to change this, regardless of owner.
> >
> >2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of
> >the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under
> >.org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real
> >life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them
> >are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you
> >see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I
> >registered alangreenberg.org and used .org for the domain name of my
> >local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for
> >ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
> >
> >That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that
> >has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure
> >of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org
> >into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to
> >.com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.



> >If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very
> >targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!


It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but
then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater
value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of
.ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG
like pursuits)

If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's
unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price
increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the
path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD.  This is just a thought,
shared in context.


> And
> >along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The
> >lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its
> >annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
> >
> >Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those
> >assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.



> However, far more
> >important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the
> >shots and those other entities who may have control have made no
> >such assurances at all.
>

Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner
that would so easily concede control.


> >
> >I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not.
> >The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But
> >if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it
> >include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of
> >the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a
> >true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be
> >difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be
> >honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the
> >intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for
> >having their contract revoked.
>

That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.


> >
> >Alan Greenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> 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) and
> the website Terms of Service (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/20200121/6940c389/attachment.html>