Forwarding on behalf of Kathy, due to email issues<br><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 8:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>Hi Amr and All, <br></div><div><p>Busy week. Let me see if I can address issues being raised in
the emails. I won't respond to all of them, as that would flood
everyone inbox. But I'll try to respond to the key issues in a
few emails. <br></p><p>Also, nothing is personal here. We're talking about the
interpretation of contract language -- and the rather strange
relationship Registries -> to Registrars -> to
Registrants. Please remember legacy Registries have no direct
relationship with the Registrants of their domain names. The
customers of Registries are Registrars; the customers of
Registrars are Registrants (we created this system when we broke
of Network Solutions years ago). <br></p><p>Which is why not a single provision of the new "base registry
agreement" for .ORG (written for new gTLD registries in approx
2009/2010) talks about the relationship of registries and
registrants. Frankly, these new gTLD base registry agreements
don't care much about Registrants, but that's a different
problem. Quick note that in my initial email, I did lay out <i>all</i> of the provisons of 2.10, as well as the provisions of .ORG's
2013 Renewal (its current contract) -- all at the bottom of the
email for everyone to review. <br></p><p>Let's start with .ORG's 2013 contract renewal with ICANN. This
is the agreement currently in effect, and it is under this
agreement under which many of our expectations as registrants of
.ORG domain names were set (because we likely registered or
renewed in this timeframe). <br></p><p><br></p><p style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria", serif"><b>.ORG 2013 Contract</b></span><br></p><p style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:"Cambria", serif">"Section 7.3. <u>Pricing
for Domain Name Registrations and Registry Services</u>.</span><br></p><p><a name="7.3.a"></a><a name="7.3.b"></a><span style="font-family:"Cambria", serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">7.3(a) <u>Pricing</u>. 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></span><br></p><p><span style="font-family:"Cambria", serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">7.3(b) <u>Adjustments to Pricing for Domain Name
Registrations</u>. 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 style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </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></span><br></p><p><span style="font-family:"Cambria", serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"></span></span><b>2013 showed us -- clear price cap, clear
price increase </b>limitations. That's what I signed on with
the renewal of my .ORGs, and so did everyone else.<br></p><p>Let's apply this to the proposed new .ORG
agreement based on the base registry agreement clearly written
for new gTLDs (paying $185,000 filing fees for a new gTLD and
having the expensive proposition of starting a registry
competing with the giants of Verisign and PIR (who got their
registries for nothing).) So the "applicable registrant" in
base registry 2.10(c) below, which you have cited, <i><b>cannot
have </b>"<span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><b class><u class>expressly agreed in its
registration agreement with registrar to higher
Renewal Pricing"</u></b></span></span></span></i><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class> because it wasn't in the .ORG contract of
the time. There was not contract, rule, guidance or
idea that PIR could raise prices through the roof.
**It wasn't in the existing .ORG </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif">registration agreements.
** </span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif">We've
also agreed that there is no notice provision registrants in
2.10(a) and 2.10(b). So we move to 2.10(c). Taking into
account the above, the notice provision in 2.10(c) cannot
apply to the the 10 million existing base of .ORG
registrants because none of us registered under these new
provisions. 2.10(c) is drafted for, and intended for, and
applies to the new gTLD registrars and the terms they are
imposing on new gTLD registrants. They were not in our
existing registration agreements for .ORG because these
terms have not been accepted yet. (that's what we are
arguing over). <i><b>We are the **existing registrants**
and nothing in 2.10(a) (b) or now (c) says that we must
be notified of changes in renewal pricing, including
dramatic price increases. </b></i></span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif">So
the only thing we are left to discuss is the goal of the new
gTLD agreement "<i class><span class style="text-indent:
96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><b class><u class>Section 2.10(c) is to
prohibit abusive and/or discriminatory Renewal
Pricing practices imposed by Registry Operator" </u></b></span></span></span></i><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class>and I have to say this is pretty cold
comfort. These are completely undefined terms that
mean something different to you than to me. (I'll
address this response to Milton's email in a
moment.) <i><b>Is $50 renewal per year for a
.ORG domain name abusive or discriminatory?
$100? $200? </b></i><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class><i><b>Clarifying
these terms is likely send us
all to court -- if you have the
type of money that would be
needed for litigation. </b></i></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class><i>But Amr,
all of this is a really a red
herring because Jon Nevett,
drafter of content provisions for
Donuts (which EFF calls
"censorship") is trying to do the
same here and get the same broad
rights to protect trademark and
copyright owners -- far beyond
law, far beyond due process, and
especially harmful in our .ORG
traditional home for free
expression, fair critique. That's
the real problem -- that's the
real issue.</i></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class><i>More to
come. Tx to all who read this far!</i></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class><span style="font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class><i>Best, Kathy</i></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><span class><span class></span></span></span></span></span></span><i class><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"></span></i><br></p><p>On 4/30/2019 6:30 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br></p><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Kathy, <br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Apologies for not responding sooner (and also for
a long read, if you care to go through it all), and I know the
NCSG has already submitted a comment asking for the price caps
to remain in place, so I’m only really sending this reply to
respond to your assertion below, and for the discussion to
continue should anybody care to look in to this any further. I
don’t believe you’ve proven or disproven anything with your
subsequent email. If you want to go with what the contract
says, you have to go with what ALL of it says.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Here’s what you said:<br></div><div class><br></div><div class><br></div><div class><blockquote class type="cite"><div class>On Apr 27, 2019, at 1:19 AM, Kathy Kleiman
<<a class href="mailto:kathy@DNRC.TECH">kathy@DNRC.TECH</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div class><br></div><div>[SNIP]<br></div><div><br></div><div class><div class bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote class type="cite"><p style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-size:12pt">[2.10(a)
Registries provide registrars with a 30 day notice
of price increases (registrations).<span class> </span></span><br></p></blockquote><div class>Right, and as you’ve pointed out, this
concerns new registrations, not renewals, so has no
effect on CS/NFP organizations looking to renew domain
names registered under .org<br></div><div class><br></div><div class><blockquote class type="cite"><div class bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-size:12pt">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 style="font-family:"Times New Roman", serif"><span style="font-size:12pt">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></span><br></p><p style="line-height: normal;"><b class><i class><span style="font-size:12pt">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><br></p></div></blockquote></div><div class>Here, we move on to the issue of renewals,
and you don’t see the bit on the notification to
registrants here, because it isn’t here. It’s further
down in 2.10(c). However, my reading of 2.10 leads me to
believe that 2.10(b) and (c) need to be analyzed
together, or in other words…, how they might complement
each other.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Then you go on to say this:<br></div><div class><br></div><div class><blockquote class type="cite"><div class bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-size:12pt">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 class> </span>with some vague
additional language about not wanting to allow
abusive and discriminatory renewal pricing. </span><br></p><p style="line-height: normal;"><b class><i class><span style="font-size:12pt">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><br></p></div></blockquote></div><div class>Important to note again that we’re still
discussing renewals here. A combination of 2.10(b) and
2.10(c) to me reads that all that is required is for one
registrar to choose to renew at the same price for a
period of up to 10 years, and the Registry Operator will
be required to fix its renewal rates at that same price
across the board with all registrars. Noting that there
are comments out there by registrars opposing the price
cap removal, I’m guessing that at least one of them will
take advantage of this clause in the contract, should
PIR’s contract be amended.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>More importantly, I’m not sure why you
selectively left out the parts of 2.10(c). You say the
language is vague, but I don’t find it to be as vague as
you do, provided that I have not misunderstood it, of
course. Section 2.10(c) says (apologies for the lengthy
bit of text below, but I’ve bolded the parts I want to
emphasize):<br></div><div class style="text-indent: 96px;"><br></div><div class style="text-indent: 96px;"><i class>“<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman", serif"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span><span class style="text-indent: 96px;"><span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px">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 in place at the time of such renewal, and
such price must take into account universal
application of any refunds, rebates, discounts,
product tying or other programs in place at the
time of renewal. <b class><u class>The
foregoing requirements of this Section 2.10(c)
shall not apply for (i) purposes of
determining Renewal Pricing if the registrar
has provided Registry Operator with
documentation that demonstrates that the
applicable registrant expressly agreed in its
registration agreement with registrar to
higher Renewal Pricing at the time of the
initial registration of the domain name
following clear and conspicuous disclosure of
such Renewal Pricing to such registrant</u></b>,
and (ii) discounted Renewal Pricing pursuant to a
Qualified Marketing Program (as defined below). <b class><u class>The parties acknowledge
that the purpose of this Section 2.10(c) is to
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 and this Section
2.10(c) will be interpreted broadly to
prohibit such practices</u></b>. For purposes
of this Section 2.10(c), a “Qualified Marketing
Program” is a marketing program pursuant to which
Registry Operator offers discounted Renewal
Pricing, provided that each of the following
criteria is satisfied: (i) the program and
related discounts are offered for a period of time
not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) calendar
days (with consecutive substantially similar
programs aggregated for purposes of determining
the number of calendar days of the program), (ii)
all ICANN accredited registrars are provided the
same opportunity to qualify for such discounted
Renewal Pricing; and (iii) the intent or effect of
the program is not to exclude any particular
class(es) of registrations (e.g., registrations
held by large corporations) or increase the
renewal price of any particular class(es) of
registrations. Nothing in this Section 2.10(c)
shall limit Registry Operator’s obligations
pursuant to Section 2.10(b).”</span></span></span></i><br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div>So basically, the Registry Operator must have uniform
pricing for renewals, taking in to account any registrar’s
ability to lock those renewal prices up for a period of up
to 10 years. An exception would be if <i class><b class>“the applicable registrant expressly agreed in
its registration agreement with the registrar to higher
Renewal Pricing at the time of the initial registration
of the domain name following clear and conspicuous
disclosure of such Renewal Pricing to such registrant”</b></i>.
Seeing that no registrants have agreed to clear and
conspicuous disclosures of renewal pricing, since there
haven’t been any in the past, why do you find this to be
vague?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Amr<br></div><div><div><br></div><blockquote class type="cite"><div class>On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:53 AM, Kathy Kleiman
<<a class href="mailto:kathy@DNRC.TECH">kathy@DNRC.TECH</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div class><div class bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p class>Milton, I showed in a substantial,
subsequent email how those comments don't actually
track the language of 2.10, the pricing provisions
of the new Registry agreement. I included each
subsection, a summary, and then the full contractual
language. Ultimately, we have to go with what the
contract says... <br></p><p class>Please see my follow-up email. There is
absolutely no provision for notification of
registrants, unfortunately... <br></p><p class>Best, Kathy<br></p><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/29/2019 10:48 PM,
Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br></div><blockquote class type="cite"><div><br></div><div>In answer to Ayden and Michael I am resending to the
list comments Amr made a few days ago. They show how
the new Registry Agreement still limits price
increases effectively. I guess folks who are
panicking about uncontrolled price increases didn’t
read the actual registry agreement. <br></div><div class><br></div><div class>So no, Ayden I am not impressed with
the comments of the existing .org registrants
because it seems like they are not well-informed -
all they hear is the phrase “no more price caps”.
Seems like the price increases only affect new
registrants. <br></div><div class><br></div><div class><div>But why let facts get in the way of
your fun, eh?<br></div><div><br></div><div class><div><br></div><div class dir="ltr"><div>Milton L Mueller <br></div><div class>Professor, School of Public
Policy<br></div><div class>Georgia Institute of Technology<br></div></div><div class dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Begin forwarded message:<br></div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class type="cite"><div class dir="ltr"><div><b class>From:</b> Amr Elsadr <<a class href="mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja">aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja</a>><br></div><div><b class>Date:</b> April 25, 2019 at
16:33:35 EDT<br></div><div><b class>To:</b> <a class href="mailto:milton@GATECH.EDU">milton@GATECH.EDU</a><br></div><div><b class>Cc:</b> <a class href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br></div><div><b class>Subject:</b> <b class>Re:
[Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal
of .org Registry Agreement</b><br></div><div><b class>Reply-To:</b> Amr Elsadr <<a class href="mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja">aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja</a>><br></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class type="cite"><div class dir="ltr"><div>Hi Milton, <br></div><div class><br></div><div class>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.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>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 class>“<span style="font-family:Cambria, serif"><span style="font-size:16px">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></span>“</i>.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Thanks.<br></div><div class><br></div><div class>Amr <br></div><div class><div class><div><br></div><blockquote class type="cite"><div class>On Apr 25, 2019, at 9:30
PM, Mueller, Milton L <<a class href="mailto:milton@GATECH.EDU">milton@GATECH.EDU</a>>
wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div class><div style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
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; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; text-decoration: none;"><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><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><br></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><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="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:10pt"></span></span></span><br></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><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><br></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">MM</span></span></span><br></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></div><div class><div class style="border-style: solid
none none; border-top-width:
1pt; border-top-color:
rgb(225, 225, 225); padding:
3pt 0in 0in;"><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><b class><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"><span> </span>NCSG-Discuss <<a class style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>><span> </span><b class>On Behalf Of<span> </span></b>Amr
Elsadr<br class> <b class>Sent:</b><span> </span>Thursday, April 25, 2019 10:33 AM<br class> <b class>To:</b><span> </span><a class style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br class> <b class>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re: [Urgent] [Public Comment]
Proposed Renewal of .org
Registry Agreement</span></span></div></div></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">Hi,<br></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">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.<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">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.<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">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.<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">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 class>“support many
excellent causes”</i>, as
pointed out in the draft.<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">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.<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">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.<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">Thanks.<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;">Amr<br></div></div><div class><div class><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times New
Roman", serif;"><div><br></div></div><blockquote class style="margin-top:
5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><div class><div class style="margin: 0in
0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
"Times New
Roman", serif;">On Apr 25,
2019, at 3:59 PM, Rafik
Dammak <<a class style="color: purple;
text-decoration:
underline;" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<br></div></div><div class style="margin: 0in 0in
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
font-family: "Times
New Roman", serif;"> <br></div><div class><div class><div class><div class style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
"Times New
Roman", serif;">Hi all,<br></div><div class><div class style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
"Times New
Roman",
serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
"Times New
Roman",
serif;">We have a
suggested draft
comment (
attached) on
proposed renewal
of .org
agreement <a class style="color:
purple;
text-decoration:
underline;" href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en">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.<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
"Times New
Roman",
serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
"Times New
Roman",
serif;">Best Regards,<br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
"Times New
Roman",
serif;"> <br></div></div><div class><div class style="margin:
0in 0in 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:
"Times New
Roman",
serif;">Rafik <br></div></div></div></div><div class style="margin: 0in
0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
12pt; font-family:
"Times New
Roman", serif;"><Org Letter
Rev.docx><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></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 class><div><br></div><table class style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;"><tbody class><tr class><td class style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a class 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"><img class="proton-embedded" style="width: 46px; height:
29px;" alt src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" width="46" height="29"></a><br></td><td class style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px;
color: #41424e; font-size: 13px;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a class style="color: #4453ea;" 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">www.avast.com</a><br></td></tr></tbody></table><div><a class height="1" width="1"></a><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>