[CPWG] Communication to ICANN GC

[Steinar Grøtterød]

Dear Michael,

After listened to the recordings from the GNSO-TPR and the CPWG calls, I (still) have some problem understanding the ICANN Approved transfers and the Anti Trust questions you rise.

The present policy has a fixed fee (USD 50,000) for transfers of >50,000 domain name per TLD. The WG has in several meeting discussed removing this fee in the revisited policy. It is worth noticing that the present policy was defined before the opening of the new gTLDs.

My understanding is that there is some consensus that if there should be a fee, the fee should be set by the registry operator.

ICANN Approved transfers has two main categories:

  *   Voluntary agreed transfers that falls under the definition of ICANN approved transfers.
  *   Involuntary transfers that falls under the definition of ICANN approved transfers.

A typical scenario for a voluntary agreed transfers is when a registrar (A) has acquired another registrar (B) and thereby want to transfer the domain names to the accreditation(s) of registrar A. Registrar A will do the calculation whether an ICANN bulk transfer will be beneficial based on the volume (and policy) and the fees set by the gTLDs. The alternative is to transfer the domain names in a regular inter-registrar transfer process (get auth codes, initiate the transers etc).

A typical involuntary transfers is when a registrar has lost their accreditation (RAA) or the Registry Registrar Agreement(s) is terminated. In these scenarios, the domain names will be without a sponsorship, hence "someone" has to take the work to sponsor the namespace in question. Further, in these involuntary scenarios there often will be lack of support from the "losing" registrar.

The discussions connected to involuntary transfers have touched "who should pay" the Registry operator(s) (ICANN or the selected registrar that takes the responsibility to get the domain name sponsored) and what should it cost (a fixed fee – set by the Registry Operator(s), or "cost recovery").

I have problems seeing the above as relevant in an Anti Trust discussion connected to ICANN Approved transfers.

For the domain name holders, it is important that their domain names get a sponsorship.

Regards,
Steinar Grøtterød

From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Date: Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 13:57
To: cpwg at icann.org <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] Communication to ICANN GC
Hello All,

In connection with a discussion that took place on yesterday’s CPWG call, I decided to send the following communication to ICANN’s General Counsel in an individual capacity.

Best regards,

Michael


From: Michael Palage
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:13 PM
To: John Jeffrey
Subject: Anti-Trust/Competition Concern wrt Transfer Policy Review PDP WG (22-Aug-2023 Call)

Hello John,

I would like to bring to your attention some concerns about the substance of yesterday’s Transfer Policy Review PDP WG. Although I raised this concern during today’s At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG), this comment is being submitted in an individual capacity.

During yesterday’s call registrars and registries were engaged in discussions regarding registry pricing (both floors and ceilings) in connection with ICANN Approved Transfers. A copy of the recording is available here – https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2023-08-22+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call

Based on the portions of the call that I listened to live, I think ICANN staff did an appropriate job walking a very fine line when they referenced fees, including I recall a suggestion to remove the fee reference from the existing policy. However, I believe there were multiple references to fee minimums and caps imposed by Registries that were concerning, especially when enforced via an ICANN policy document.

Recently, I have been active in other standards bodies and trade associations. I have noticed a growing best practice of these organizations to include a standard reference to the organization’s anti-trust policy at the beginning of most calls/events. Therefore, I would like to propose the following action items:


  *   I do not believe that ICANN has a public Anti-Trust/Competition policy. My apologies if I have somehow missed this. If one does exist I would greatly appreciate a pointer to this document. If one does not exist, then ICANN should strongly consider developing a public Anti-Trust / Competition policy.
  *   I believe the standard ICANN preamble text that is read before each session/call (e.g. “Those who take part in the ICANN multistakeholder process are to comply with the expected standards of behavior” be amended to include a specific reference to the Anti-Trust / Competition policy when one is adopted.
  *   It would seem advisable for someone from ICANN legal to monitor these calls when the agenda specifically envisions a discussion of fees as it did today.

[cid:image001.png at 01D9D5DD.0EA5B5D0]


Best regards,

Michael


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230824/593dfe95/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 308064 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230824/593dfe95/image001-0001.png>