<div dir="auto">+1 Kathy<div dir="auto">Thank you very much.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 20:39 Kathy Kleiman <kathy@dnrc.tech> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Nadira, Tx you for your comment. The drafter appears to have
the same thoughts in writing the comment. He expresses a concern
for the 10 million incumbent .ORG registrants, all of whom
registered their domain names with the expectation of price caps
and limited price increases - and many of whom have been in their
domain name space for years if not decades, with well-known
websites, email address and listservs making switching costs very,
very high. <br>
</p>
<p>Here's what the comment proposes on this issue:</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify" id="m_-6812473584670699400docs-internal-guid-03b944e4-7fff-d3eb-098e-7363a7f32928"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;white-space:pre-wrap">"On the other hand, as the home for schools, community organizations, open-source projects, and other non-profit entities, this registry should not necessarily operate under the same commercial realities that guide other domains. Fees should remain affordable, with domains which are priced within reach of everyone. Consequently, rather than removing the price cap provisions entirely, we suggest that they should be raised by a reasonable level, or at the very least, that this aspect of the contract should be subject to review at the midpoint of the contract, to assess its impact on the ability of potential registrants, particularly non-profits or charities, to register and renew domains at a reasonable cost."</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;white-space:pre-wrap">Recommendations:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;white-space:pre-wrap">2. Rather than removing price caps from the agreement entirely, these should be retained but raised by an appropriate amount. In the alternative, this aspect of the contract should be subject to a review midway through the contract, based on the impact of the price changes on non-profit registrants.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;white-space:pre-wrap">I think this address your middle ground of not typing PIR to its current 2013 prices, but not allowing unrestricted increases.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;white-space:pre-wrap">Best, Kathy
</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></p>
<div class="m_-6812473584670699400moz-cite-prefix">On 4/27/2019 9:34 AM, Nadira Alaraj
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Note: I slipped the "not" from my sentence.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">*so that
the new contract not be retroactive, </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif">in order to the current .ORG
registrants not be affected. </span><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 27, 2019,
15:37 Nadira Alaraj <<a href="mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nadira.araj@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">Dear Kathy and all</div>
Thank you for the through investigations on this matter.
<div dir="auto">I was wondering if there is a way, so
that the new contract to be retroactive, in order to
the current .ORG registrants be affected. By any
increase in case the community couldn't bring the cap
increase down.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Another issue I didn't read in many of
the comments that not all .ORG registrants are NGOs
hence there are some registrants who might take
advance of the current status.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
These are my 2 naive thoughts,
<div dir="auto">Best wishes,</div>
<div dir="auto">Nadira <br>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 27,
2019, 02:21 Kathy Kleiman
<a class="m_-6812473584670699400moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kathy@dnrc.tech" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><kathy@dnrc.tech></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <span>Hi
Milton, Amr and All,</span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>Unfortunately,
I read the contract differently and fear
that the current 10 million .ORG
registrants face a difficult (and
expensive) future. To Milton's excellent
question, <i>What, exactly, are those
“protections for existing registrants”?</i>,
the answer is <i>"not much."</i> Here's
the pricing provisions of the .ORG
proposed agreement (and I’ve been checking
with domain name attorneys all afternoon):
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>2.10(a)
Registries provide registrars with a 30
day notice of price increases
(registrations).<span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>2.10(b)
“With respect to renewal of domain name
registrants” Registry will provide
registrars with “advance written notice of
any price increase, and “</span><span>Registry Operator
shall offer registrars the option to
obtain domain name registration renewals
at the current price (i.e., the price in
place prior to any noticed increase) for
periods of one (1) to ten (10) years at
the discretion of the registrar, but no
greater than ten (10) years.” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><b><i><span>But
the option to allow renewal for 1 to
10 years is at the option of the
registrar. There’s nothing that
requires the registrar to notify
registrants that the price of their
.ORG domain names will be going
(possibly dramatically) and that the
time to renew is now. This is
something that is being written about
a lot, but I don’t see it in the
contract. (Some registrars may let
their registrants know early; others
may not.) There is absolutely no
requirement of notice to the
registrant of a price increase for
renewals – for .ORG (or any other
registry which has signed this
agreement). </span></i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif"><span> </span></span></i></b><b><i><span></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>2.10(c) “In
addition, Registry Operator must have
uniform pricing for renewals of domain
name registrations (“Renewal Pricing”).
For the purposes of determining Renewal
Pricing, the price for each domain
registration renewal must be identical to
the price of all other domain name
registration renewals at the time of such
renewal” <span> </span>with some vague
additional language about not wanting to
allow abusive and discriminatory renewal
pricing. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><b><i><span>Thus,
PIR’s job is to charge all registrars
the same price for new registrations
and renewals – whatever that price is
and however much PIR wants to charge.
This is no guidance about abusive and
discriminatory renewal pricing, no
definitions and no clear limitations.
</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>Overall, I
think Akriti Bopanna’s comment for The
Centre for Internet and Society, India,
today is right on point:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><b><span>“Removal
of Price Caps</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>“ICANN’s
decision to remove price caps in the .org
agreement will only intensify the
unfettered power given to Registries with
the presumption of renewal. The</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>organization
has long heard accusations of engaging in
closed door decision making</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>and
with such a move that pushes for the
rights of registries over registrars, such</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>concerns
are only growing. As it is, .org can raise
its prices by 10% every year which is</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>unduly
generous in itself.5 Giving PIR a
limitless ability to increase prices would
be</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>doing
grave injustice to domain owners who have
bought such domains under the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>assumption
of price caps. This is in contrast to the
new gTLDS where there is more of</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>a
burden on such owners to keep up with the
actions of private owners. Legacy</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>gTLDS,
unlike the new ones, were not created and
sold to private entities but handed</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>over
to entities like PIR to maintain them in
public interest.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>“Being
one of the first TLD’s to be introduced, a
multitude of significant websites and</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>therein,
initiatives, have their home on the .org
domain. As pointed out in the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>community
discussions several times, these domains
are used by NGO’s, nonprofit</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>trade
associations, individual member
associations as well as tax-exempt
charities.6</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>ICANN’s
justification for proposing these steps is
to align legacy gTLD agreements with those
of the other newer gTLDS but as argued by
the Internet Commerce</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Association;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>“They
have completely different characteristics,
history, and ownership</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>structure.
It is not acceptable for ICANN to ignore
these differences and to</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>propose
that they be treated the same.7</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>“Given
the longevity of these domains on .org,
they have put in substantial investment</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>in
maintaining their online presence and
cultivating their identity and brand. They</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>are
entitled to protection from arbitrary
pricing and having the same financial
rules</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>as
when they originally bought their domains.
If such caps are removed then many of</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>these
domain owners can find it too expensive to
maintain their sites, especially with</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>no
guarantee of future price stability as
well. A look at the mailing lists is
enough to</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>see
how small organizations are actively
pleading with ICANN to not go ahead with</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>this
because it will increase their operational
costs.8</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>“None
of this is to say that PIR would, in fact,
go ahead and increase the prices</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>exorbitantly
or at all, however leaving that option to
them does not bode well for any</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>party
save them. Further, no clear reasoning has
been provided for such a step like</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>the
need for any additional funds to maintain
the domain and in absence of any</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>exceptionally
necessary situation, the price cap should
continue to exist. Given that</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>PIR
is a not-for-profit organization, the
rationale to remove caps seems even less</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>unclear
than it would be, for say, Verisign.
Allowing the removals could very well be</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>opening
Pandora’s box with other Registries then
demanding removals too. Registries</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>own
all the extensions to their domain and
lack of a price ceiling only enriches the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>revenue
of, ultimately, the one owner leading to a
bigger monopolistic situation than</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>already
is currently prevalent.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>Needless to
say, I support NCSG’s comment too!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>Best,
Kathy </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>----------------------------</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>Proposed
2019 .ORG Registry Agreement</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>2.10
Pricing for Registry Services.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>(a)
With respect to initial domain name
registrations, Registry Operator</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>shall
provide each ICANN accredited registrar
that has executed the Registry-Registrar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Agreement
for the TLD advance written notice of any
price increase (including as a result</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>of
the elimination of any refunds, rebates,
discounts, product tying or other programs</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>which
had the effect of reducing the price
charged to registrars, unless such
refunds,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>rebates,
discounts, product tying or other programs
are of a limited duration that is clearly</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>and
conspicuously disclosed to the registrar
when offered) of no less than thirty (30)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>calendar
days. Registry Operator shall offer
registrars the option to obtain initial
domain</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>name
registrations for periods of one (1) to
ten (10) years at the discretion of the
registrar,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>but
no greater than ten (10) years.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>(b)
With respect to renewal of domain name
registrations, Registry</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Operator
shall provide each ICANN accredited
registrar that has executed the Registry-</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Registrar
Agreement for the TLD advance written
notice of any price increase (including as</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>a
result of the elimination of any refunds,
rebates, discounts, product tying,
Qualified</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Marketing
Programs or other programs which had the
effect of reducing the price charged</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>to
registrars) of no less than one hundred
eighty (180) calendar days.
Notwithstanding the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>foregoing
sentence, with respect to renewal of
domain name registrations: (i) Registry</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Operator
need only provide thirty (30) calendar
days notice of any price increase if the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>resulting
price is less than or equal to (A) for the
period beginning on the Effective Date</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>and
ending twelve (12) months following the
Effective Date, the initial price charged
for</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>registrations
in the TLD, or (B) for subsequent periods,
a price for which Registry Operator</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>provided
a notice pursuant to the first sentence of
this Section 2.10(b) within the twelve</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>(12)
month period preceding the effective date
of the proposed price increase; and (ii)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Registry
Operator need not provide notice of any
price increase for the imposition of the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Variable
Registry-Level Fee set forth in Section
6.3. Registry Operator shall offer
registrars</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>the
option to obtain domain name registration
renewals at the current price (i.e., the
price in place prior to any noticed
increase) for periods of one (1) to ten
(10) years at the discretion of the
registrar, but no greater than ten (10)
years.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>(c)
In addition, Registry Operator must have
uniform pricing for renewals</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>of
domain name registrations (“Renewal
Pricing”). For the purposes of determining</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Renewal
Pricing, the price for each domain
registration renewal must be identical to
the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>price
of all other domain name registration
renewals in place at the time of such
renewal,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>and
such price must take into account
universal application of any refunds,
rebates,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>discounts,
product tying or other programs in place
at the time of renewal. The foregoing</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>requirements
of this Section 2.10(c) shall not apply
for (i) purposes of determining</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Renewal
Pricing if the registrar has provided
Registry Operator with documentation that</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>demonstrates
that the applicable registrant expressly
agreed in its registration agreement</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>with
registrar to higher Renewal Pricing at the
time of the initial registration of the
domain</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>name
following clear and conspicuous disclosure
of such Renewal Pricing to such</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>registrant,
and (ii) discounted Renewal Pricing
pursuant to a Qualified Marketing Program</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>(as
defined below). The parties acknowledge
that the purpose of this Section 2.10(c)
is to</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>prohibit
abusive and/or discriminatory Renewal
Pricing practices imposed by Registry</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Operator
without the written consent of the
applicable registrant at the time of the
initial</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>registration
of the domain and this Section 2.10(c)
will be interpreted broadly to prohibit</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>such
practices. For purposes of this Section
2.10(c), a “Qualified Marketing Program”
is a</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>marketing
program pursuant to which Registry
Operator offers discounted Renewal</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Pricing,
provided that each of the following
criteria is satisfied: (i) the program and
related</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>discounts
are offered for a period of time not to
exceed one hundred eighty (180) calendar</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>days
(with consecutive substantially similar
programs aggregated for purposes of</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>determining
the number of calendar days of the
program), (ii) all ICANN accredited</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>registrars
are provided the same opportunity to
qualify for such discounted Renewal</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>Pricing;
and (iii) the intent or effect of the
program is not to exclude any particular</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>class(es)
of registrations (e.g., registrations held
by large corporations) or increase the</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>renewal
price of any particular class(es) of
registrations. Nothing in this Section
2.10(c)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>shall
limit Registry Operator’s obligations
pursuant to Section 2.10(b).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>(d)
Registry Operator shall provide public
query-based DNS lookup</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span>service
for the TLD (that is, operate the Registry
TLD zone servers) at its sole expense.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>-------------</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>Here’s
PIR’s current pricing language, from its
2013 agreement:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>Section
7.3. Pricing for Domain Name Registrations
and Registry Services. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>7.3(a)
Pricing. From the Effective Date through
31 December 2013, the price to
ICANN-accredited registrars for new and
renewal domain name registrations and for
transferring a domain name registration
from one ICANN-accredited registrar to
another, shall not exceed a total fee of
US$8.25 (the "Maximum Service Fee").
Commencing on 1 January 2014, the Maximum
Service Fee charged during a calendar year
for each annual increment of a new and
renewal domain name registration and for
transferring a domain name registration
from one ICANN-accredited registrar to
another, may not exceed the Maximum
Service Fee during the preceding calendar
year multiplied by 1.10. The same Service
Fee shall be charged to all
ICANN-accredited registrars for new and
renewal domain name registrations. Volume
discounts and marketing support and
incentive programs may be made if the same
opportunities to qualify for those
discounts and marketing support and
incentive programs is available to all
ICANN-accredited registrars.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span> 7.3(b)
Adjustments to Pricing for Domain Name
Registrations. Registry Operator shall
provide no less than six months prior
notice in advance of any price increase
for domain name registrations and shall
continue to offer domain name
registrations for periods of up to ten
years.<span> </span>Registry Operator is
not required to give notice of the
imposition of the Variable Registry-Level
Fee set forth in Section 7.2(c).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:normal"><span>----------------------------<br>
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"> Hi Milton,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If my understanding of Section 2.10 of
the Registry Agreement is correct,
registrars can continue to renew existing
registrations without an increase in price
following an increase in pricing of new
registrations by the Registry Operator
(RO) for a period of up to 10 years.
Additionally, ROs are required to have
uniform pricing for registration renewals.
This would mean that all renewal prices
would remain unchanged, unless they all
change across all registrars
simultaneously.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The protections for existing
registrants referred to are detailed in
2.10c of the Registry Agreement. The
protection is basically that registrants
have to agree to renewal prices higher
than that of the original registration at
the time of the initial registration. It
can’t be forced upon them at a later date.
This is meant as a provision to <i>“<span style="font-family:Cambria,serif;font-size:16px;text-indent:96px">prohibit
abusive and/or discriminatory Renewal
Pricing practices imposed by Registry
Operator without the written consent
of the applicable registrant at the
time of the initial registration of
the domain</span>“</i>.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Amr </div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Apr 25, 2019, at 9:30 PM,
Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@GATECH.EDU" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">milton@GATECH.EDU</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<div class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941WordSection1" style="font-family:TrebuchetMS;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.<span class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);background-color:white;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial">Protections for existing
registrants will remain in
place, in line with the base
registry agreement.“</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">What,
exactly, are those
“protections for existing
registrants”?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">MM</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none none;border-top-width:1pt;border-top-color:rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<div><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-converted-space"> </span>NCSG-Discuss
<<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>><span class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On
Behalf Of<span class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Amr
Elsadr<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-converted-space"> </span>Thursday,
April 25, 2019 10:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b><span class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
[Urgent] [Public Comment]
Proposed Renewal of .org
Registry Agreement</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hi,</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>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<span class="m_-6812473584670699400m_-3215450327228791716m_2074479673144817941Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>“support
many excellent causes”</i>,
as pointed out in the draft.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>Amr</o</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="m_-6812473584670699400moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kathy Kleiman
Visiting Scholar, Center for Information Technology, Princeton University
President (on leave), Domain Name Rights Coalition</pre>
<div id="m_-6812473584670699400DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width:46px;height:29px"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link" style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#m_-6812473584670699400_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1" rel="noreferrer"> </a></div></div>
</blockquote></div>