<div>Forwarding on behalf of Kathy, as her emails are not going through<br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div>On Thursday, May 2, 2019 8:01 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div>Milton, <br></div><div><p>I am very happy that Internet Governance Project, without
notice or budgeting, would have the money to pay for a 10 year
renewal of the .ORG domain name. Even if we heard about such a
rise in price (and I've noted in my last email that see nothing
requiring anyone to notify us), this is real money:<br></p><p><u>Estimates</u><br></p><p>$20 a year for registration times 10 years = $200 <br></p><p>$10 a year for proxy registration (as .ORG registrants seek
proxy and privacy registrants due to the controversial nature of
their work with politics, religion, family planning, education
of girls and LGBTQ issues) times 10 years =$100 (or more)<br></p><p>Total $300. <br></p><p>For my groups and for many groups I work with countries in
regions around the world, this is real money. It might take
additional fundraising, time to prepare and time to budget. It
might preempt other projects, priorities and deadlines. It might
not be doable in a short period of time.<br></p><p>Many groups live on shoestring budgets. Again, Milton, I'm glad
you don't :-). <br></p><div>Best regards, Kathy<br></div><div><br></div><p><br></p><p>On 4/30/2019 11:01 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br></p><blockquote type="cite"><div><p><span style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt">I
am really pressed for time right now but want to weigh in
on one other issue.</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">Internet
Governance Project is a .org registrant and a nonprofit
with a small budget.</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">Let’s
keep things in perspective. Our domain registration costs
about $20 a year.</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">Our
hosting costs $500 a year. Our salaries and travel
expenses cost tens of thousands a year.</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">We
probably spend more on pens and paper every year than we
spend on domain names.</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">If
our wholesale price for a domain quadrupled, it would
hardly be noticeable impingement on our budget.</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"> </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">I
am not asking PIR to raise its prices by that much, I am
simply making the point that there is something fishy
about organizations the size of AARP – which has been
sending me hundreds of dollars worth of junk mail every
year since I was 55 – worrying about rising cost of its
domain name, which might add to its hundred million budget
by $20 a year.</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"> </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">Hey
folks, you want to do something REAL for domain name
registrants, both noncommercial and commercial? Let’s get
ICANN contracts to allow us to register names in
perpetuity. That would much solve this whole issue,
wouldn’t it? Anyone with a long-term equity in a domain
would be able to secure it.</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"> </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">Do
you know why we can’t do that? Because of WIPO (the
trademark interests). They want to limit end user property
rights on domain so that they can be more easily regulated
and taken away. That was one of the first decisions ICANN
made back in 1998 (Kathy knows this well).</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"> </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">The
issue for me is not so much the caps, but the way in which
pricing and regulation of the domain name industry can be
so easily politicized. And I believe that 9 times out of
10, politically-driven intervention in competitive
industries is counterproductive. We are being manipulated
here. Let’s keep our eyes on the real prize, which is end
user rights in domain names,</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"> </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"> </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">Dr.
Milton L Mueller</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">School
of Public Policy</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">Georgia
Institute of Technology</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"> </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"> </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"> </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 href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU></a> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ayden Férdeline<br> <b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 7:39 AM<br> <b>To:</b> <a 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</span></span></p><p> <br></p><div><p>Hi Amr,<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>I understand your point, and it is
possible that some of these comments were filled as part
of an astroturfing campaign. However I think it is unfair
to give the Internet Commerce Association all the credit
here. Firstly, most of the commenters are not their
members (though some are). Secondly, it is evident if you
read through the comments submitted that many of the
comments are coming from existing .org registrants, many
of which represent legitimate non-profits who worry they
will not be able to afford their domain name moving
forward. I think this is a legitimate concern in the
absence of any firm assurances that they will be protected
moving forward. And I think it is clear why they are
focusing on the removal of price caps and not rights
protection mechanisms - that's less obvious an issue to
those who are not following ICANN closely. I also note
that only around 200 comments were received on the
amendments to the .info registry agreement, versus 3,200
on .org - if domainers were behind this movement, why
wouldn't they show out in strength on .info too?<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Ultimately, I think the NCSG should be
defending the interests of non-commercial registrants and
we should take a conservative approach when doing so. As
Alan Greenberg noted in <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003187.html" target="_blank" title="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003187.html"> his comment</a>, <i>"PIR has
regularly raised prices in the past. Although they have
not raised prices recently, they now have a new CEO and
a new Chair of the Board. Given that, past behaviour is
NOT necessarily a predictor of future actions. ICANN
should take the prudent and public-interest path and
preserve caps on allowed price increases." </i>I agree.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Best wishes,<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><div><div><p>Ayden<br></p></div></div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></p></div><div><p>On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 1:08 PM, Amr
Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@ICANNPOLICY.NINJA">aelsadr@ICANNPOLICY.NINJA</a>>
wrote:<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p>Right on, Milton. I’m equally
unimpressed.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>First, there are indications that the
domainer community has been actively mobilizing to fight
this, including the Internet Commerce Association (ICA)
- which is basically a trade federation for domainers.
For the reasons Milton explained before, they stand to
lose from a removal of the price cap more than anybody
else, but that is for purely commercial reasons that
have nothing to do with the interests of NGOs and NFP
orgs. If anything, making life more difficult for
domainers should be good for Civil Society organizations
who are attempting to register new domain names (not
renewing already registered ones), only to find that a
domainer has registered the name in the past, and is
essentially not using it at all, but is instead holding
it hostage hoping that somebody will someday be willing
to pay a hefty ransom. I also suspect that we’ll get a
repeat of this when the time comes to deal with a
similar issue on .com registration and renewals down the
road.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Isn’t it surprising to anybody at all
that commenters are more-or-less all saying the same
thing? Like they all got the same briefing, and are
objecting to removal of price caps without even
understanding the nuances involved at all? I haven’t
gone through a fraction of the comments, but I don’t see
as much pushback against RPMs being included in PIR’s
new Registry Agreement.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>If that hasn’t raised an eyebrow,
isn’t anybody surprised by the sheer number of comments
submitted? Since when do ICANN issues open for public
comment attract so much attention? I wasn’t aware that
all these NFPs followed ICANN so closely, or pay
attention to changes in its agreements with its
Contracted Parties. Well…, they don’t really, and I
believe they’ve submitted comments without fully
understanding the issue.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Sure…, there’s no evidence that any
of the commenters have been…, ahem…, encouraged to
submit their comments, but to outright dismiss that as a
possibility would IMO be naive. Unless compelling
reasons point in another direction, I suspect (I
generally hate to make assumptions) that is exactly what
happened. I very much doubt that whoever might (or might
not be) behind this has civil society interests at
heart.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>I fear that we’re behaving more like
the IPC, BC and the GAC right now than we have in the
past as NCSG. I don’t mean on the substance of the
issue, but more so our approach. We have historically
opposed ICANN having a heavy hand in regulating issues
that might negatively impact non-commercial registrants’
privacy or their ability to express themselves freely,
as well as any attempt to impose or shift unreasonable
costs on to them. It’s always been these other groups
who’ve advocated and lobbied for ICANN to tighten its
stranglehold on Contracted Parties in order to protect
their special interests. It seems like times are
changing, and we’re joining the club.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Thanks.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><div><p>Amr<br></p></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p>On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:48 AM,
Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@GATECH.EDU">milton@GATECH.EDU</a>>
wrote:<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>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></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>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></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><div><p>But why let facts get in
the way of your fun, eh?<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><div><p>Milton L Mueller<br></p></div><div><p>Professor, School of
Public Policy<br></p></div><div><p>Georgia Institute of
Technology<br></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Begin forwarded
message:<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p><b>From:</b> Amr
Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja">aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja</a>><br></p></div><div><p><b>Date:</b> April
25, 2019 at 16:33:35 EDT<br></p></div><div><p><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:milton@GATECH.EDU">milton@GATECH.EDU</a><br></p></div><div><p><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br></p></div><div><p><b>Subject:</b> <b>Re:
[Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed
Renewal of .org Registry Agreement</b><br></p></div><div><p><b>Reply-To:</b> Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja">aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja</a>><br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p>Hi Milton,<br></p></div><div><p> <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.<br></p></div><div><p> <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>.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Thanks.<br></p></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Amr <br></p></div><div><div><div><p> <br></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p>On Apr 25,
2019, at 9:30 PM, Mueller,
Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@GATECH.EDU">milton@GATECH.EDU</a>>
wrote:<br></p></div><div><p> <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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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 style="font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif"><span style="font-size:11pt"> NCSG-Discuss
<<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><span style="color:purple">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</span></a>> <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Amr
Elsadr<br> <b>Sent:</b> Thursday,
April 25, 2019 10:33 AM<br> <b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"><span style="color:purple">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</span></a><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re:
[Urgent] [Public
Comment] Proposed
Renewal of .org Registry
Agreement</span></span></p></div></div></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><p>Hi,<br></p></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>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></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>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></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>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></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>On the
second issue, where the
draft comment disagrees with
removing price caps for .org
registrations, I’m pretty
sure I don’t agree with the
rationale or conclusion. I
don’t believe PIR’s status
as a non-profit entity
justifies this. IMO, it
imposes unreasonable
obligations on PIR that
other Registry Operators are
not subject to, so
effectively penalizing PIR
for its status, and its
continued mission to <i>“support
many excellent causes”</i>,
as pointed out in the draft.<br></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>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></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>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></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>Thanks.<br></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>Amr<br></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><p>On
Apr 25, 2019, at 3:59
PM, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM"><span style="color:purple">rafik.dammak@GMAIL.COM</span></a>>
wrote:<br></p></div></div><div><p> <br></p></div><div><div><div><div><p>Hi
all,<br></p></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>We
have a suggested
draft comment (
attached) on
proposed renewal
of .org
agreement <a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en"><span style="color:purple">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en</span></a>.
The deadline for
submission is
the 29th April
and for NCSG PC
to review and
endorse. Please
share your
comments abd
input.<br></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>Best
Regards,<br></p></div></div><div><div><p> <br></p></div></div><div><div><p>Rafik <br></p></div></div></div></div><div><p><Org
Letter Rev.docx><br></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><p> <br></p></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div>Ayden Férdeline<br></div><div><a title="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline">linkedin.com/in/ferdeline</a><br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div>