[Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at DNRC.TECH
Sat Apr 27 20:21:47 EEST 2019
Milton,
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!
Best, Kathy
On 4/27/2019 8:57 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Kathy,
>
> 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.
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of
> *Nadira Alaraj
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 27, 2019 5:03 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal of .org
> Registry Agreement
>
> +1 Kathy
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019, 20:39 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
>
> 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> <mailto: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
>
> Image removed by sender.
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
>
>
--
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/a4e69a66/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190427/a4e69a66/attachment.jpg>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list