<div>Hi Nadira,<br></div><div><br></div><div>You raise a good point that there are also similar public comments open for .info and .biz, and perhaps we should be commenting on those as well. But I think they are materially different from the proposed changes to the .org Registry Agreement and the typical .org registrant. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I personally think that a price cap for .org registrations is reasonable, and I don't consider that to be making ICANN into a price regulator. If, and this is a worst case scenario, the registry began allowing or even promoting charging premium fees, or even auctioning names rather than maintaining a standard and highly affordable fee as is the case at present, this could create serious challenges for non-commercial registrants who might even be forced by cost to move to a different TLD; and change costs for existing users of domains are significant, so, they are more or less captive to paying the increased costs. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I have spoken to a contact within another part of our ecosystem, and I have heard through the grapevine that PIR feels a fee of up to $50 per year would not be a barrier to .org registrants. I have raised the comments that Amr made with a PIR contact, because if his reading of Section 2.10 of the base registry agreement is correct it would alleviate a lot of concerns that I have, however I have not received any assurances that that is their understanding. So, in the absence of such an assurance, I do think it is troubling to give any contracted party (not singling out PIR here) the unrestricted ability to increase prices on its base of 10+ million registrants by any amount, with no restrictions whatsoever.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,<br></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div>Ayden Férdeline <br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On Sunday, April 28, 2019 8:04 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@GMAIL.COM> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div dir="auto"><div>The discussion here are focussing on the renewal of the .ORG registry agreement and I can understand why. But there are public comments for the agreements of .info, .asia and .biz. The latter falls under the new gTLD agreements, I'm assuming that this group members over the years are aware of all the possible revenue models of many registries. <br></div><div dir="auto">If not it is worth documenting it as references for newcomers for comparisons and later discussions. What have worked well to the registrants could be pushed in forward in consistent campaigns of public comments not focusing on one registrar agreement while leaving the others.<br></div><div dir="auto"><div><br></div><div dir="auto" class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Apr 28, 2019, 04:24 Kathy Kleiman <kathy@dnrc.tech> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>Milton, <br></p><p>These are tried and true ways that have worked for many years.
But I'm game: what would you propose to prevent gouging? It's a
good time for great ideas!<br></p><p>Best, Kathy<br></p><div>On 4/27/2019 8:57 PM, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Kathy,<u></u><u></u></span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">What
“the drafter” is proposing is that ICANN take on the power
to set prices for registries. I don’t want ICANN to do that
or be that. First, I think prices should be set by the
market. Second, I think we can prevent registries from
gouging their customers in better ways. <u></u><u></u></span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">--MM<u></u><u></u></span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></span><br></p><p><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">From:</span></span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> NCSG-Discuss <a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Nadira Alaraj<br> <b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 27, 2019 5:03 PM<br> <b>To:</b> <a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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<u></u><u></u></span></span></p><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p><div><p>+1 Kathy<u></u><u></u><br></p><div><p>Thank you very much.<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div></div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p><div><div><p>On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 20:39 Kathy
Kleiman <a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:kathy@dnrc.tech"><kathy@dnrc.tech></a> wrote:<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><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. <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Here's what the comment proposes on this issue:<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">"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></span></span><u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Recommendations:</span></span></span></b><u></u><u></u><br></p><p><b><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">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></span></span></b><u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">I
think this address your middle ground of not typing
PIR to its current 2013 prices, but not allowing
unrestricted increases.</span></span></span><u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Best,
Kathy </span></span></span><u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="color:black"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><u></u><u></u><br></p><div><p>On 4/27/2019 9:34 AM, Nadira Alaraj
wrote:<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p>Note: I slipped the "not" from
my sentence.<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div><div><p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif">*so
that the new contract not be retroactive, in
order to the current .ORG registrants not be
affected. </span><u></u><u></u><br></p><div><div><p>On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 15:37
Nadira Alaraj <<a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com">nadira.araj@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><p>Dear Kathy and all<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><p>Thank you for the through
investigations on this matter. <u></u> <u></u><br></p><div><p>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.<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div><div><p>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.<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div><p>These are my 2 naive
thoughts, <u></u><u></u><br></p><div><p>Best wishes,<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><p>Nadira <u></u><u></u><br></p><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p><div><div><p>On Sat, Apr 27,
2019, 02:21 Kathy Kleiman <a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:kathy@dnrc.tech"> <kathy@dnrc.tech></a> wrote:<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><p>Hi Milton, Amr
and All, <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>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): <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>2.10(a)
Registries provide registrars with
a 30 day notice of price increases
(registrations). <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>2.10(b)
“With respect to renewal of domain
name registrants” Registry will
provide registrars with “advance
written notice of any price
increase, and “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.” <u></u><u></u><br></p><p><b><i>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). </i></b><b><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria", serif"> </span></i></b><u></u><u></u><br></p><p>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” with some vague
additional language about not
wanting to allow abusive and
discriminatory renewal pricing. <u></u><u></u><br></p><p><b><i>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. </i></b><u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Overall,
I think Akriti Bopanna’s comment
for The Centre for Internet and
Society, India, today is right on
point:<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"><b>“Removal
of Price Caps</b><u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">“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<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">organization
has long heard accusations of
engaging in closed door decision
making<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">and with
such a move that pushes for the
rights of registries over
registrars, such<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">concerns
are only growing. As it is, .org
can raise its prices by 10% every
year which is<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">unduly
generous in itself.5 Giving PIR a
limitless ability to increase
prices would be<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">doing
grave injustice to domain owners
who have bought such domains under
the<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">assumption
of price caps. This is in contrast
to the new gTLDS where there is
more of<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">a burden
on such owners to keep up with the
actions of private owners. Legacy<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">gTLDS,
unlike the new ones, were not
created and sold to private
entities but handed<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">over to
entities like PIR to maintain them
in public interest.<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">“Being
one of the first TLD’s to be
introduced, a multitude of
significant websites and<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">therein,
initiatives, have their home on
the .org domain. As pointed out in
the<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">community
discussions several times, these
domains are used by NGO’s,
nonprofit<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">trade
associations, individual member
associations as well as tax-exempt
charities.6<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">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<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">Association;<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.75in">“They
have completely different
characteristics, history, and
ownership<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.75in">structure.
It is not acceptable for ICANN to
ignore these differences and to<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.75in">propose
that they be treated the same.7<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">“Given
the longevity of these domains on
.org, they have put in substantial
investment<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">in
maintaining their online presence
and cultivating their identity and
brand. They<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">are
entitled to protection from
arbitrary pricing and having the
same financial rules<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">as when
they originally bought their
domains. If such caps are removed
then many of<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">these
domain owners can find it too
expensive to maintain their sites,
especially with<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">no
guarantee of future price
stability as well. A look at the
mailing lists is enough to<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">see how
small organizations are actively
pleading with ICANN to not go
ahead with<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">this
because it will increase their
operational costs.8<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in"> <u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">“None of
this is to say that PIR would, in
fact, go ahead and increase the
prices<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">exorbitantly
or at all, however leaving that
option to them does not bode well
for any<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">party
save them. Further, no clear
reasoning has been provided for
such a step like<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">the need
for any additional funds to
maintain the domain and in absence
of any<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">exceptionally
necessary situation, the price cap
should continue to exist. Given
that<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">PIR is a
not-for-profit organization, the
rationale to remove caps seems
even less<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">unclear
than it would be, for say,
Verisign. Allowing the removals
could very well be<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">opening
Pandora’s box with other
Registries then demanding removals
too. Registries<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">own all
the extensions to their domain and
lack of a price ceiling only
enriches the<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">revenue
of, ultimately, the one owner
leading to a bigger monopolistic
situation than<u></u><u></u><br></p><p style="margin-left:.5in">already
is currently prevalent.<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Needless
to say, I support NCSG’s comment
too!<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Best,
Kathy <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>----------------------------<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Proposed
2019 .ORG Registry Agreement<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>2.10
Pricing for Registry Services.<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>(a)
With respect to initial domain
name registrations, Registry
Operator<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>shall
provide each ICANN accredited
registrar that has executed the
Registry-Registrar<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Agreement
for the TLD advance written notice
of any price increase (including
as a result<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>of
the elimination of any refunds,
rebates, discounts, product tying
or other programs<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>which
had the effect of reducing the
price charged to registrars,
unless such refunds,<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>rebates,
discounts, product tying or other
programs are of a limited duration
that is clearly<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>and
conspicuously disclosed to the
registrar when offered) of no less
than thirty (30)<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>calendar
days. Registry Operator shall
offer registrars the option to
obtain initial domain<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>name
registrations for periods of one
(1) to ten (10) years at the
discretion of the registrar,<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>but
no greater than ten (10) years.<u></u><u></u><br></p><p> <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>(b)
With respect to renewal of domain
name registrations, Registry<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Operator
shall provide each ICANN
accredited registrar that has
executed the Registry-<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Registrar
Agreement for the TLD advance
written notice of any price
increase (including as<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>a
result of the elimination of any
refunds, rebates, discounts,
product tying, Qualified<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Marketing
Programs or other programs which
had the effect of reducing the
price charged<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>to
registrars) of no less than one
hundred eighty (180) calendar
days. Notwithstanding the<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>foregoing
sentence, with respect to renewal
of domain name registrations: (i)
Registry<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Operator
need only provide thirty (30)
calendar days notice of any price
increase if the<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>resulting
price is less than or equal to (A)
for the period beginning on the
Effective Date<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>and
ending twelve (12) months
following the Effective Date, the
initial price charged for<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>registrations
in the TLD, or (B) for subsequent
periods, a price for which
Registry Operator<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>provided
a notice pursuant to the first
sentence of this Section 2.10(b)
within the twelve<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>(12)
month period preceding the
effective date of the proposed
price increase; and (ii)<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Registry
Operator need not provide notice
of any price increase for the
imposition of the<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Variable
Registry-Level Fee set forth in
Section 6.3. Registry Operator
shall offer registrars<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>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.<u></u><u></u><br></p><p> <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>(c)
In addition, Registry Operator
must have uniform pricing for
renewals<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>of
domain name registrations
(“Renewal Pricing”). For the
purposes of determining<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Renewal
Pricing, the price for each domain
registration renewal must be
identical to the<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>price
of all other domain name
registration renewals in place at
the time of such renewal,<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>and
such price must take into account
universal application of any
refunds, rebates,<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>discounts,
product tying or other programs in
place at the time of renewal. The
foregoing<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>requirements
of this Section 2.10(c) shall not
apply for (i) purposes of
determining<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Renewal
Pricing if the registrar has
provided Registry Operator with
documentation that<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>demonstrates
that the applicable registrant
expressly agreed in its
registration agreement<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>with
registrar to higher Renewal
Pricing at the time of the initial
registration of the domain<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>name
following clear and conspicuous
disclosure of such Renewal Pricing
to such<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>registrant,
and (ii) discounted Renewal
Pricing pursuant to a Qualified
Marketing Program<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>(as
defined below). The parties
acknowledge that the purpose of
this Section 2.10(c) is to<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>prohibit
abusive and/or discriminatory
Renewal Pricing practices imposed
by Registry<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Operator
without the written consent of the
applicable registrant at the time
of the initial<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>registration
of the domain and this Section
2.10(c) will be interpreted
broadly to prohibit<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>such
practices. For purposes of this
Section 2.10(c), a “Qualified
Marketing Program” is a<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>marketing
program pursuant to which Registry
Operator offers discounted Renewal<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Pricing,
provided that each of the
following criteria is satisfied:
(i) the program and related<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>discounts
are offered for a period of time
not to exceed one hundred eighty
(180) calendar<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>days
(with consecutive substantially
similar programs aggregated for
purposes of<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>determining
the number of calendar days of the
program), (ii) all ICANN
accredited<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>registrars
are provided the same opportunity
to qualify for such discounted
Renewal<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Pricing;
and (iii) the intent or effect of
the program is not to exclude any
particular<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>class(es)
of registrations (e.g.,
registrations held by large
corporations) or increase the<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>renewal
price of any particular class(es)
of registrations. Nothing in this
Section 2.10(c)<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>shall
limit Registry Operator’s
obligations pursuant to Section
2.10(b).<u></u><u></u><br></p><p> <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>(d)
Registry Operator shall provide
public query-based DNS lookup<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>service
for the TLD (that is, operate the
Registry TLD zone servers) at its
sole expense.<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>-------------<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Here’s
PIR’s current pricing language,
from its 2013 agreement:<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>Section
7.3. Pricing for Domain Name
Registrations and Registry
Services. <u></u><u></u><br></p><p>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.<u></u><u></u><br></p><p> 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. Registry
Operator is not required to give
notice of the imposition of the
Variable Registry-Level Fee set
forth in Section 7.2(c).<u></u><u></u><br></p><p>----------------------------<u></u><u></u><br></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><p>Hi Milton, <u></u><u></u><br></p><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div><div><p>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.<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div><div><p>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>“</i><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria", serif">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>.<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div><div><p>Thanks.<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div><div><p>Amr <u></u><u></u><br></p></div><div><div><p></p><div><br></div><div><u></u><u></u><br></div><p></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p>On
Apr 25, 2019, at 9:30
PM, Mueller, Milton L
<<a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:milton@GATECH.EDU">milton@GATECH.EDU</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u><br></p></div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p><div><div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">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> </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">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></span><span style="background-color:white"><span style="color:rgb(51, 51, 51)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">Protections
for existing
registrants will
remain in place,
in line with the
base registry
agreement.“</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">What,
exactly, are those
“protections for
existing
registrants”?</span></span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">MM</span></span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><p><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">From:</span></span></b><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">NCSG-Discuss
<<a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><span style="color:purple">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</span></a>><span> </span><b>On
Behalf Of<span> </span></b>Amr
Elsadr<br> <b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Thursday,
April 25, 2019
10:33 AM<br> <b>To:</b><span> </span><a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><span style="color:purple">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</span></a><br> <b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re:
[Urgent]
[Public
Comment]
Proposed
Renewal of
.org Registry
Agreement</span></span><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p></div></div></div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Hi,<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">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.<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">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.<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">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.<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">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> </span><i>“support
many excellent
causes”</i>,
as pointed out
in the draft.<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">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.<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">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.<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Thanks.<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p><span style="font-family:"TrebuchetMS", serif"><span style="font-size:10.5pt">Amr</o<u></u><u></u></span></span><br></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><pre>-- <u></u><u></u><br></pre><pre>Kathy Kleiman<u></u><u></u><br></pre><pre>Visiting Scholar, Center for Information Technology, Princeton University<u></u><u></u><br></pre><pre>President (on leave), Domain Name Rights Coalition<u></u><u></u><br></pre><div><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p><table style="border:none;border-top:solid #d3d4de 1.0pt" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" border="1"><tbody><tr><td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:9.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt" width="57"><p><a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon"><span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"></span></a><u></u><u></u><br></p></td><td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:9.0pt .75pt .75pt .75pt" width="406"><p style="line-height:13.5pt"><span style="color:rgb(65, 66, 78)"><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt">Virus-free. <a rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link"> <span style="color:rgb(68, 83, 234)">www.avast.com</span></a> <u></u><u></u></span></span></span><br></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><u></u> <u></u><br></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><pre cols="72">--
Kathy Kleiman
Visiting Scholar, Center for Information Technology, Princeton University
President (on leave), Domain Name Rights Coalition<br></pre></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>