[Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement

[Nadira Alaraj]

Thank you Amr,
I did have the same understanding -even before reading your explanation-
about the "base registry agreement".



On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 23:34 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:

> Hi Milton,
>
> 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.
>
> 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 *“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“*.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 9:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> “Protections for existing registrants will remain in place, in line with
> the base registry agreement.“
>
> What, exactly, are those “protections for existing registrants”?
>
> MM
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Amr
> Elsadr
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2019 10:33 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal of .org
> Registry Agreement
>
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 *“support many excellent
> causes”*, as pointed out in the draft.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 3:59 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have a suggested draft comment ( attached) on proposed renewal of .org
> agreement  https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en.
> The deadline for submission is the 29th April and for NCSG PC to review and
> endorse. Please share your comments abd input.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
> <Org Letter Rev.docx>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190426/451679e4/attachment.htm>