[CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR

Fri May 8 23:02:26 UTC 2020

Not sure you said anything new or different from what I said John. I was saying I probably hung on to the domainer issue personally because it began there a ND so many of the emails came via a form they created. CLEARLY, domainers don't care that much about ORG. Duh. It was a stalking horse exercise for COM, obviously.

And yes, prices would have gone up, to some degree and a substantial amount would change hands in the aggregate. I myself have, I am sure, greater than the median number or ORG registrations. This would be no different than when a landlord sells the building in which a non-profit is housed. Been there many times as well.

Again, we learned a lot about the deal after we were asked to comment in it. I'm not trying to be glib.

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

________________________________
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of John McCormac <jmcc at hosterstats.com>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020, 3:23 PM
To: cpwg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR

On 08/05/2020 20:26, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> As for due diligence, you know quite well that I DID contact several
> commenters/organizers to see how we might work together to achieve
> consensus and the vitriol began very early. I ALSO know, as you do, that
> the whole movement was begun by the domainers and carried their
> imprimatur for quite some time. There was a HUGE campaign to get

Really? With only 2.4% of .ORG on auction/sale sites it was those nasty
domainers who mobilised everyone against the deal?

To put this in perspective, domainers concentrate on .COM because that's
where the main money is and the main demand. The .ORG is not a big
market for most domainers but they do form a convenient scapegoat. Some
of the true believers consider that domainers are keeping all the good
domain names for themselves in the gTLDs when the reality is that most
of the domain names are not used and the registrars park them on PPC
landing pages to monetise them. Those domain names may be used for
e-mail or brand protection. The reality is that someone else registered
the domain name first.

> non-profits involved but it didn’t start there. It began with Chicken
> Little emails about the end of the world, coming from the only community
> that REALLY has price sensitivity. In fact, you were one of the

And it turned out that part of the deal involved lumbering PIR with
hundreds of millions of Dollars of debt so that Ethos and co could take
over the registry. As for "price sensitivity", every registrant in .ORG
would end up paying more for the honour of having Ethos take over .ORG.
Those hundreds of millions of Dollars of debt would have had to have
been paid and the the people who would pay it would be the registrants.
Not the lobbyists or the ICANN bubble dwellers to whom such matters are
largely theoretical but the non-profits and the people who built
websites about their kid's soccer or baseball team on .ORG because it
wasn't like .COM. Those people trying to raise money for a good cause
would have some of that money scalped to pay back those hundreds of
millions of Dollars of debt. And some domainers might have to pay a
little bit more for their registrations.

Outside the USA, the .ORG has recognition but it is a non-core TLD in
that it does not have a major part of any country's domain name market.
With most countries with an well run ccTLD, the bulk of new
registrations are in the ccTLD. Most of the rest are in .COM. The
.NET/ORG/BIZ/INFO new registrations are quite low. In terms of domain
name footprints, the .ccTLD/.COM share of many country level markets is
around 80%. The .ORG is stuck in that 20% competing with the other
non-core gTLD (the other legacy gTLDs), the new gTLDs and adjacent
market ccTLDs.

The optics on the Ethos deal were bad. No amount of turd polishing was
going to make them seem good. There was an inevitablility about the CA
AG's intervention and ICANN and Ethos have nobody but themselves to
blame for this. It doesn't matter how many people on the list defended
the deal or how many opposed the deal. Once the deal attracted the
notice of US politicians in a presidential election year, it was dead.

The new gTLDs have not fared well and some of those gTLDs have been
taken over without any objections. They are different from .ORG in that
many of them have failed meet the predictions of the astrologers in
ICANN who expected over 30 million registrations in the first year of
operation. Those purchases of new gTLDs are largely firesales and they
avoid the new gTLD going into EBERO. But they are all different to the
.ORG. They are unlikely to attract any governmental oversight.

Ironically, the reputation of many of the new gTLDs amongst domainers is
rather low. It might be a bit cynical to think that it would be better,
in the future, to pay more attention to what domainers say as domainers
actually put their money on the line and register domain names. They've
got skin in the game and their opinion is just as valid, if not more so,
than the lobbyists on both sides who talk a good game but never register
domain names. Having high-minded opinions on a mailing list (or at ICANN
meetings) about the interests of end-users is nice but someone else
generally ends up paying for those opinions.

Regards...jmcc
--
**********************************************************
John McCormac  *  e-mail: jmcc at hosterstats.com
MC2            *  web: http://www.hosterstats.com/
22 Viewmount   *  Domain Registrations Statistics
Waterford      *  Domnomics - the business of domain names
Ireland        *  https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO
IE             *  Skype: hosterstats.com
**********************************************************
_______________________________________________
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/20200508/b3199d6f/attachment-0001.html>