[article] The Register: Shall we strip price caps from .org, mulls ICANN. Hm, people seem really upset... OK, let's do it

[Ayden Férdeline]

My understand is that the removal of the price cap means that PIR can now raise prices however much they like, on whoever they like, at their sole discretion.

While ICANN is not a consumer protection organization, I would have hoped that an organization that claims to operate in the global public interest would have seen there being a benefit to keeping .org domains available at reasonable prices. But it seems there was a greater desire for contract harmonization.

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 14:09, Raoul Plommer <plommer at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Like I said, I don't know the ICANN's contract details on blanket pricing, but if there's none, or they are flexible enough, perhaps the large organisations' domain price could be raised, say based on their turnover (or even profitability) and small domains' price would be decreased. I don't know if this would be possible, but I think that sort of progressive pricing could be encouraged for majority's benefit. Could that be true?
>
> -Raoul
>
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:51, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Raoul,
>>
>> I am not here to question PIR's intentions. You are right that just because they could raise prices, does not mean they necessarily will.
>>
>> The issue I was trying to emphasise was that of regulatory capture; that ICANN has disregarded the input of 3,000 unique comments, including those from some of the largest and most well-respected NGOs, and listened instead only to the opinions of 6 lobbyists who called for the removal of consumer protections.
>>
>> I believe we (in the NCSG) should be developing and supporting positions which advance the interests of non-commercial users and uses of the DNS, including ensuring that domain names remain affordable to everyone. And we should do this even when those who fund us are behind some questionable proposals.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 13:40, Raoul Plommer <plommer at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> While I worry that there might now be pressure to raise prices on .org domains,  I have to point out the assumption that
>>>
>>>> The price caps have been taken off .org domains, meaning that more than 10 million largely non-profit organizations will end up paying more for their online presence each year
>>>
>>> is not necessarily true.
>>>
>>> Although the price caps have been taken off, it doesn't automatically follow that they will raise the prices of .org domains. In fact PIR explicitly promised not to do so in the near future at least. Nor does the raising of the price cap mean that all 10 million domains will face raised prices simultaneously, or does it?. I think there are organisations using .org that could actually afford a raise in the price of their domain - not all of them are not-for-profit or NGOs. I might also be wrong here, since I'm not too familiar with ICANN's blanket terms on the pricing of a domain within a TLD. Please tell me if so.
>>>
>>> In any case, the money is going to PIR, which funds the NCSG and the Internet Society among other things and those seem like decent and transparent organisations to me. It's not all bad for the civil society in my understanding.
>>>
>>> -Raoul
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 09:20, Michael Casadevall <michael at casadevall.pro> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Link to the public comments page for context:
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en
>>>>
>>>> Staff report:
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-org-renewal-03jun19-en.pdf
>>>>
>>>> I'm deeply concerned by this action and I see it being discussed on the
>>>> ALAC global ML (which I was unfortunately not subscribed to until I went
>>>> looking during the drafting of this email).
>>>>
>>>> Reading the staff report, and some of the comments on the PDP, it's
>>>> pretty clear that there was very large "against" sentiment regards to
>>>> price caps on .org. The report also failed to consider the fact that
>>>> because .org is a legacy domain and the cost of migrating can be
>>>> exceedingly high that anyone with said domains can essentially be said
>>>> to be locked in. .org also historically has been the home of
>>>> not-for-profits and similar organizations which makes this even more
>>>> glaring.
>>>>
>>>> While I can understand ICANN orgs desire to standardize the registrar
>>>> agreements, I'm not certain how this action falls in line with the
>>>> bylaws. To quote: "Removing the price cap provisions in the .org
>>>> Registry Agreement is consistent with the Core Values of ICANN org as
>>>> enumerated in the Bylaws approved by the ICANN community. These values
>>>> guide ICANN org to introduce and promote competition in the registration
>>>> of domain names and, where feasible and appropriate, depend upon market
>>>> mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment in the DNS
>>>> market."
>>>>
>>>> .org is a single TLD, and people that are using it are not going to be
>>>> inclined to move due to the extremely high costs involved in changing an
>>>> organizations domain in general let alone to a new TLD.
>>>>
>>>> Beyond the issue of price-caps, there's also the issue bring URS and
>>>> PICDIP into .org when these mechanisms were meant for new gTLD and not
>>>> .org that dates back to essentially the inception of modern DNS (the EFF
>>>> comment sums up these points fairly well:
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003200.html)
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> On 7/1/19 5:51 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>>> This article is a must-read. While it is hardly a secret that ICANN is
>>>>> unaccountable and captured by industry, this decision is shocking even
>>>>> by the low standards we hold ICANN to:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/01/org_domain_icann/
>>>>>
>>>>> The price caps have been taken off .org domains, meaning that more than
>>>>> 10 million largely non-profit organizations will end up paying more for
>>>>> their online presence each year ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Over 3,300 comments – a huge number given that ICANN's public comment
>>>>> periods rarely attract more than 50 – were sent and were overwhelmingly
>>>>> against the price caps being removed. One study noted that over 98 per
>>>>> cent of comments were explicitly opposed to the change. Just six
>>>>> supported lifting the caps, all from industry lobbyists. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that ICANN signed a new contract with such far-reaching
>>>>> consequences despite having carried out no economic analysis, despite
>>>>> thousands of comments opposing the change, and then did so without an
>>>>> explanation, or public discussion, or a Board resolution, is indicative
>>>>> of an organization that can, and does, act in its own interests and with
>>>>> impunity, despite the fact its oversees a vast public resource and
>>>>> claims to be acting in the public interest.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190703/0ad032d8/attachment.htm>