<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I agree with Amr that the letter should also oppose applying
Trademark Claims to .ORG, for essentially the same reasons that the
letter opposes the application of URS. As registrants in .ORG are
generally not commercial entities, the message conveyed by Trademark
Claims notices about the possibility of trademark infringement will
often be inapplicable, and frequently misleading. The notices would
give the impression that a nonprofit entity's noncommercial use of a
word or phrase in a domain name is likely to infringe a trademark,
which is incorrect. <br>
Mitch<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/donate">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://act.eff.org/">https://act.eff.org/</a>
</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/25/19 12:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN6PR07MB45752E927CEBBC7D7C2855A4A13D0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
agree with the letter’s discussion of URS and other RPMs. I
agree with Amr that we may need to moderate the language
about “unilateral ICANN action” however because PIR may
indeed have gone along with this. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">On
the issue of price caps, I think we need some factual
clarification. If Amr is right and the potential price
increases only apply to new registrants, then there is much
less of an issue. The proposed renewal says “</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white">Protections
for existing registrants will remain in place, in line with
the base registry agreement.“</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">What,
exactly, are those “protections for existing registrants”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
NCSG-Discuss <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Amr Elsadr<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 25, 2019 10:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed
Renewal of .org Registry Agreement<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for sharing this, Rafik. Speaking
for myself, I very much agree with the comment on adding the
new gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) to the PIR
contract for .org at this time. As the draft comment rightly
points out, these RPMs will not actually be Consensus
Policies until after the ICANN Board adopts the
recommendations of the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP
Working Group, and should not apply to any of the legacy
gTLDs, including .org. However to characterize the decision
to do so as a unilateral ICANN decision is something I’m not
sure of. I presume that PIR negotiated this with ICANN
before the public comment period began? I might be wrong, as
I’m making an assumption here.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">To be clear, the RPMs that would be
applicable here (if I’m not mistaken) are the Uniform Rapid
Suspension (URS) and the Trademark Claims RPM (part of the
Trademark Clearing House), but not the Sunrise Registrations
RPM, obviously, since .org has been around for a while.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Substantively, I don’t believe the URS
will be much of an issue, since it is largely deemed to be
an unappealing mechanism for use by Trademark holders, as
the stats and anecdotal evidence that has been shared to
date indicate. The impact of Trademark Claims, on the other
hand, might be very different, and prior to it being
reviewed by the RPMs PDP, and adopted as an ICANN policy, I
don’t believe adding it to the .org contract in a renewal is
a good move.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the second issue, where the draft
comment disagrees with removing price caps for .org
registrations, I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with the
rationale or conclusion. I don’t believe PIR’s status as a
non-profit entity justifies this. IMO, it imposes
unreasonable obligations on PIR that other Registry
Operators are not subject to, so effectively penalizing PIR
for its status, and its continued mission to
<i>“support many excellent causes”</i>, as pointed out in
the draft.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, there is little to no
evidence that I can see (at least in the draft) that
registrants of .org domain names will be negatively impacted
by removal of the price cap. My understanding is that this
will mainly impact new registrations, not existing ones, but
this isn’t addressed at all.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">To me, PIR needs to set its own price
taking in to consideration their own consumer base. If they
make bad decisions that drive their customers away, I don’t
believe this will negatively impact registrants as much as
it would PIR itself, especially considering that there are
over a thousand gTLDs for registrants to migrate to, should
they choose to do so.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Amr<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Apr 25, 2019, at 3:59 PM, Rafik
Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM"
moz-do-not-send="true">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have a suggested draft
comment ( attached) on proposed renewal of .org
agreement <a
href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en</a>
. The deadline for submission is the 29th April
and for NCSG PC to review and endorse. Please
share your comments abd input.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rafik <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><Org Letter Rev.docx><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>