[CPWG] PIR/Ethos

Tue Jan 28 14:28:54 UTC 2020

Hello Jonathon, Nat and everyone,

In support of what Nat has said I would say that any increase from the current amount to ~$40-$70++ would appear to place an unfair burden on a charity or NGO.

A government funded NGO may not have the burden that a donor supported Org has but it’s still an expense.

PIR is supposed to be a supporting body in the Public Interest. 

A new company (Ethos) does not appear to have any such concerns and while I am not overly opposed to a business making a reasonable profit that should not be the case here.

A quick look at some organizations I support shows they typically have 5-1000 domain names in support of the main web presence as well as in support of specific causes, locations or events.

Any significant increase (+20%) would place an obstacle for organizations to spin up a new event or continue their current efforts.

Even if there is not an immediate increase, what about next year or the year after?

Could we see a $100 per year .org; possibly. 

NGOs/Charities rely on the .org extension for validation.

If this was another extension I would not have the same concerns although extreme fees for a domain names are a constant concern.

Thanks for listening.

Best regards,

Bruce Baughman

in/brucebaughman <https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaughman> 

From: Nat Cohen <ncohen at telepathy.com> 
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 5:54 PM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: bruce at artistsdomain.com; Jacqueline Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>; Bill Jouris <b_jouris at yahoo.com>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos

In some parts of the world, $70 is a week's wages.  Maybe most registrants can afford to pay more - but the question is why should they have to?

The YMCA has registered over 2,400 .org domain names.  Rotary has registered over 2,900 .org domain names.  At $70 per domain name, that would be over $168,000 from the YMCA and over $200,000 per year from the Rotary organization going to the .org registry.  It's not a large sum of money for those organizations.  But they could put that money to better use than shipping it off to a private equity firm.  If there was any justification for it, it wouldn't be so bad.  But there is no justification for it except that ICANN failed to protect a public resource that was entrusted to it.

There are over a million nonprofits in the U.S., not to mention the rest of the world.  When you can put your hand into a million pockets, the sums add up pretty quickly.  The cash flows over the next few years are worth over $1 billion to Ethos.  If they go up 10 fold, then the .org registry would be worth over $10 billion to Ethos.

Either amount is a lot of money.  Certainly makes it worth the while of the folks trying to get the deal done to try to use whatever means at their disposal to bend ICANN to their will and to get ICANN to approve the sale.

Hard to see how this is in any way in the public interest.  

I just don't see how At-Large comes out looking anything but captured and a farce if it fails to oppose "the change of control of .org".

Regards,

Nat

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:05 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> > wrote:

Welcome Bruce! What what would represent "significant?" in this case, a 10 fold increase (which is much more than expected!) would amount to $70. In the context of managing a website, would that be material? I've run 6 non-profits and I'm hard pressed to consider this significant. 

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

  _____  

From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Bruce Baughman <bruce at artistsdomain.com <mailto:bruce at artistsdomain.com> >
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:53:46 AM
To: 'Jacqueline Morris' <jam at jacquelinemorris.com <mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com> >; 'Bill Jouris' <b_jouris at yahoo.com <mailto:b_jouris at yahoo.com> >
Cc: 'CPWG' <cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos 

Hello,

I have not responded to any messages from this group in the past but this issue is one that impacts my direct client base.

I am a consultant to mid/large charities and NGOs.

Most have little understanding of the domain structure but all need an affordable and reliable domain name.

Any cost or management obstacles could affect small charities and NGOs from ever growing or existing.

Any price increases that would be significant could stifle the growth of a cause or initiative.

To that; if I have any vote, it is to oppose the transfer.

Best regards,

Bruce Baughman

in/brucebaughman <https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaughman> 

From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:25 PM
To: Bill Jouris <b_jouris at yahoo.com <mailto:b_jouris at yahoo.com> >
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos

Rather than "alternative", why not "acceptable"?

Jacqueline

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, 4:31 pm Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org> > wrote:

As David says, wording is important.  Let me suggest the following: 

ICANN makes no objection to the transfer of control of PIR, once alternative arrangements are in place for the administration of the .org TLD.  PIR is ISOC's property, and they can dispose of it as they wish.  But administration of .org is not an asset available for sale to novel organizations. 

I think that makes the necessary distinction between what is ICANN's interest and what is not.  (Granted, PIR may have minimal value without the authority to administer .org.  That, however, is not our concern.) 

Regards, 

Bill Jouris

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:22:46 PM PST, David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com <mailto:mackey361 at gmail.com> > wrote: 

Bill, 

Fair enough. Wording is important at this point. 

For the best wording, it might be a good idea to refer to the letter from ICANN  <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-to-pir-17jan20-en.pdf> to PIR that delayed the decision date. 

I believe the wording is "ICANN's request for additional information will not extend the 17 February 2020 deadline for ICANN to provide or withhold consent to PIR’s proposed change of control."

If you accept the wording from that document, then the specific question for consensus in our group is ...

Can we find out how many people in our group favour that "ICANN should withhold consent to PIR’s proposed change of control"?

Cheers!

David

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:08 PM Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net <mailto:woody at pch.net> > wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com <mailto:mackey361 at gmail.com> > wrote:
> Can we find out how many people in our group favour the sale to be stopped?

Stopping the sale is not my position, and is not wording that I think should be used.  PIR is ISOC’s property, and they’re free to sell PIR to anyone they choose, for any terms they choose.

What’s of interest is the delegation of the .ORG domain.  It was delegated to ISOC under specific conditions, which ISOC unarguably no longer meets, and it was not delegated permanently, it was delegated subject to periodic review.  They’ve triggered that review by their own action.  A clear and well-established process and precedent exists, and was exercised on .ORG in 2002.  My position is that ICANN should issue an open call for proposals for the delegation of .ORG, as in 2002, use the established multistakeholder process to review the 2002 criteria and approve them for re-use, or modify them as the community deems suitable given the long-term failure of the last selection, and use the established multistakeholder process to evaluate the proposals relative to the criteria, selecting the best one, and being very, very clear that it’s not property, and not subject to transfer outside of the open, competitive multistakeholder process.

This process is the process.  There’s no question about that.  It’s the only process that ICANN has ever used for .ORG.  There was never a notion that it would only ever be applied once.  The time has simply come to execute the established process again.

                                -Bill

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org <mailto: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.

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org <mailto: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.

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org <mailto: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/20200128/48f176a1/attachment-0001.html>