[Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at DNRC.TECH
Sat Apr 27 12:38:46 EEST 2019
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.
Here's what the comment proposes on this issue:
"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."
Recommendations:
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.
I think this address your middle ground of not typing PIR to its current
2013 prices, but not allowing unrestricted increases.
Best, Kathy
On 4/27/2019 9:34 AM, Nadira Alaraj wrote:
> Note: I slipped the "not" from my sentence.
>
> *so that the new contract not be retroactive, in order to the current
> .ORG registrants not be affected.
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 15:37 Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com
> <mailto:nadira.araj at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Kathy and all
> Thank you for the through investigations on this matter.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> These are my 2 naive thoughts,
> Best wishes,
> Nadira
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 02:21 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
>
> Hi Milton, Amr and All,
>
> 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, /What,
> exactly, are those “protections for existing registrants”?/,
> the answer is /"not much."/ Here's the pricing provisions of
> the .ORG proposed agreement (and I’ve been checking with
> domain name attorneys all afternoon):
>
> 2.10(a) Registries provide registrars with a 30 day notice of
> price increases (registrations).
>
> 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.”
>
> */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). /**//**//*
>
> 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.
>
> */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. /*
>
> Overall, I think Akriti Bopanna’s comment for The Centre for
> Internet and Society, India, today is right on point:
>
> *“Removal of Price Caps*
>
> “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
>
> organization has long heard accusations of engaging in closed
> door decision making
>
> and with such a move that pushes for the rights of registries
> over registrars, such
>
> concerns are only growing. As it is, .org can raise its prices
> by 10% every year which is
>
> unduly generous in itself.5 Giving PIR a limitless ability to
> increase prices would be
>
> doing grave injustice to domain owners who have bought such
> domains under the
>
> assumption of price caps. This is in contrast to the new gTLDS
> where there is more of
>
> a burden on such owners to keep up with the actions of private
> owners. Legacy
>
> gTLDS, unlike the new ones, were not created and sold to
> private entities but handed
>
> over to entities like PIR to maintain them in public interest.
>
> “Being one of the first TLD’s to be introduced, a multitude of
> significant websites and
>
> therein, initiatives, have their home on the .org domain. As
> pointed out in the
>
> community discussions several times, these domains are used by
> NGO’s, nonprofit
>
> trade associations, individual member associations as well as
> tax-exempt charities.6
>
> 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
>
> Association;
>
> “They have completely different characteristics, history, and
> ownership
>
> structure. It is not acceptable for ICANN to ignore these
> differences and to
>
> propose that they be treated the same.7
>
> “Given the longevity of these domains on .org, they have put
> in substantial investment
>
> in maintaining their online presence and cultivating their
> identity and brand. They
>
> are entitled to protection from arbitrary pricing and having
> the same financial rules
>
> as when they originally bought their domains. If such caps are
> removed then many of
>
> these domain owners can find it too expensive to maintain
> their sites, especially with
>
> no guarantee of future price stability as well. A look at the
> mailing lists is enough to
>
> see how small organizations are actively pleading with ICANN
> to not go ahead with
>
> this because it will increase their operational costs.8
>
> “None of this is to say that PIR would, in fact, go ahead and
> increase the prices
>
> exorbitantly or at all, however leaving that option to them
> does not bode well for any
>
> party save them. Further, no clear reasoning has been provided
> for such a step like
>
> the need for any additional funds to maintain the domain and
> in absence of any
>
> exceptionally necessary situation, the price cap should
> continue to exist. Given that
>
> PIR is a not-for-profit organization, the rationale to remove
> caps seems even less
>
> unclear than it would be, for say, Verisign. Allowing the
> removals could very well be
>
> opening Pandora’s box with other Registries then demanding
> removals too. Registries
>
> own all the extensions to their domain and lack of a price
> ceiling only enriches the
>
> revenue of, ultimately, the one owner leading to a bigger
> monopolistic situation than
>
> already is currently prevalent.
>
> Needless to say, I support NCSG’s comment too!
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Proposed 2019 .ORG Registry Agreement
>
> 2.10 Pricing for Registry Services.
>
> (a) With respect to initial domain name registrations,
> Registry Operator
>
> shall provide each ICANN accredited registrar that has
> executed the Registry-Registrar
>
> Agreement for the TLD advance written notice of any price
> increase (including as a result
>
> of the elimination of any refunds, rebates, discounts, product
> tying or other programs
>
> which had the effect of reducing the price charged to
> registrars, unless such refunds,
>
> rebates, discounts, product tying or other programs are of a
> limited duration that is clearly
>
> and conspicuously disclosed to the registrar when offered) of
> no less than thirty (30)
>
> calendar days. Registry Operator shall offer registrars the
> option to obtain initial domain
>
> name registrations for periods of one (1) to ten (10) years at
> the discretion of the registrar,
>
> but no greater than ten (10) years.
>
> (b) With respect to renewal of domain name registrations, Registry
>
> Operator shall provide each ICANN accredited registrar that
> has executed the Registry-
>
> Registrar Agreement for the TLD advance written notice of any
> price increase (including as
>
> a result of the elimination of any refunds, rebates,
> discounts, product tying, Qualified
>
> Marketing Programs or other programs which had the effect of
> reducing the price charged
>
> to registrars) of no less than one hundred eighty (180)
> calendar days. Notwithstanding the
>
> foregoing sentence, with respect to renewal of domain name
> registrations: (i) Registry
>
> Operator need only provide thirty (30) calendar days notice of
> any price increase if the
>
> resulting price is less than or equal to (A) for the period
> beginning on the Effective Date
>
> and ending twelve (12) months following the Effective Date,
> the initial price charged for
>
> registrations in the TLD, or (B) for subsequent periods, a
> price for which Registry Operator
>
> provided a notice pursuant to the first sentence of this
> Section 2.10(b) within the twelve
>
> (12) month period preceding the effective date of the proposed
> price increase; and (ii)
>
> Registry Operator need not provide notice of any price
> increase for the imposition of the
>
> Variable Registry-Level Fee set forth in Section 6.3. 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.
>
> (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 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. 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, and (ii) discounted Renewal Pricing pursuant to a
> Qualified Marketing Program
>
> (as defined below). 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. 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).
>
> (d) Registry Operator shall provide public query-based DNS lookup
>
> service for the TLD (that is, operate the Registry TLD zone
> servers) at its sole expense.
>
> -------------
>
> Here’s PIR’s current pricing language, from its 2013 agreement:
>
> Section 7.3. Pricing for Domain Name Registrations and
> Registry Services.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> ----------------------------
>
>> 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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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</o
>
--
Kathy Kleiman
Visiting Scholar, Center for Information Technology, Princeton University
President (on leave), Domain Name Rights Coalition
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190427/e71141f8/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list