At-Large Workspace: ALAC Statement on Registry Agreement Renewals .org, .biz and .info

Copy of mailing list thread - EE

Bastiaan Goslings on 29 April:

While I very much appreciate Greg’s work on drafting the statement, and I like his sensible approach, I want to reiterate part of a response of mine to a comment Roberto made earlier:

'Pragmatically speaking I share your feelings with regard to 'registries that are responsible and are not going to do things that I would qualify as “silly”, like proceed with an exceptional raise od price’, however it seems to me that would only be applicable after the fact. Same for the expected limited 'effect of the raise of the price of a .org domain name on NGOs and small non-profits’.

IMO it does not argue for nor justifies removing the price cap in the .org Registry Agreement. I have not seen anyone explain _why_ this in itself would be beneficial.’

I see the same point being made in the draft statement, e.g. 'uncapped pricing does not automatically translate to significant price increases’, and 'While uncapped prices make significant price increases possible, business strategies and market forces may well make major price increases inappropriate.’

Again, I agree that might be the case. The reasoning on the Public Comment page however, which is copied in the draft statement, does not provide a (sufficient) rationale in my opinion why the price cap should be dropped:

'This change will not only allow the [.TLD]renewal agreement to better conform with the base registry agreement, but also takes into consideration the maturation of the domain name market and the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement’

This also goes, I think, for the 'What we do know is that the domain name marketplace has changed completely since these price caps were established’ in the draft statement.

regards
Bastiaan

Holly Raiche on 29 April:
>
> Greg
>
> I fear it is almost too late, but I will repeat what I said on the CPWG: .ORG is special and if we don’t comment on the others, or if comments on .ASIA are made separately, we should, at least, comment on .ORG which is for international non-profits - in the end user interest.  And to make a point that was made in the conversation, monitoring will not help; once a contract is signed, arrangements are made based upon that contract, so undoing those arrangements because a review says they aren’t operating as they should would be nigh on impossible.
>
> Holly
>

Greg Shatan (in reply to Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) on 29 April: 

> Siva,
>
> I don’t disagree with you. ISOC’s mission is much broader than ICANN, much less At-Large.  I am as trying to say that At-Large should view ISOC with a certain kinship, based on shared values and support for priorities that ultimately benefit the end-users — the Internet is for everyone!
>
>  But the broad spectrum of activities and priorities that ISOC has goes far beyond At-Large’s “band.”
>

Greg Shatan on 29 April: 

> I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally!   Please send your editorial suggestions.  As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.
>
> All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here.  It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal.  Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why.  I look at ISOC as almost
>
> a sister organization of At-Large.
>
> No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN. Rather, ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN perceives limitations in it's mission, ISOC's policies and programs span way beyond, and what ISOC does results in what is good for the DNS.
>
> As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large.  ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.”   PIR runs on similar principles.  PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry.  In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC.  Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular.  [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]
>
> Originally, my draft dealt only with .org.  We could just go back to that focus.  We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).
>
> Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues.  But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement.   Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia.   But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.
>
> Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
Marita Moll on 27 April: 

> I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?
> @Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!
>
> Marita

Greg Shatan on 26 April:

> Justine,
>
> Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.
>
> Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out.  The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG.  So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions.  I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually.  Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.
>
> In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC.  This is something I would like to counter.  [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity.  However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.
>
> I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft.  I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments.  If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg

Justine Chew on 26 April: 

> Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.
>
> My comments / suggestion are as follows:-
>
> 1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.
>
> 2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.
>
> 3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.
>
> 4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?
>
> 5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date.
>
> Justine
> (my apologies for being late to the "party")
>

Copy of mailing list - EE

Roberto Gaetano on 30 April:

Bastiaan,
I understand your point about not justifying the removal of the price cap - although I believe that we should try to converge to uniformity of contracts.
However, I was concentrating on the fear for abnormal raises, and my main point is that as a registrant I do not share this fear about .org. As I mentioned in a previous message, I have also .eu domains. ICANN has no control on those, as for any ccTLD, as a matter of fact - however, I have heard of no issue about ccTLDs not having price caps while this seems to be a major problem for .org, although the switching cost of moving away from a ccTLD would not be less than the switching cost of moving away from .com. This makes me think that the reasons for this abnormal reactions lie somewhere else, for instance in the secondary market dynamics.
Cheers,
Roberto

Bastiaan Goslings on 29 April:

Thanks, Roberto
>
> (I am jumping into this quite late, have not read the renewal proposal, and have been following the discussion from a distance.)
>
> Pragmatically speaking I share your feelings with regard to 'registries that are responsible and are not going to do things that I would qualify as “silly”, like proceed with an exceptional raise od price’, however it seems to me that would only be applicable after the fact. Same for the expected limited 'effect of the raise of the price of a .org domain name on NGOs and small non-profits’.
>
> IMO it does not argue for nor justifies removing the price cap in the .org Registry Agreement. I have not seen anyone explain _why_ this in itself would be beneficial. Unless I missed something.
>
> regards,
> Bastiaan

Roberto Gaetano on 29 April:

>> So, here is my comment.
>> Just to be clear, I am not submitting any “official” comment, but would like to point out a couple of elements that have been touched in this discussion.
>> As disclosure, but you all probably know that, I am a member of the PIR Board and a member of the EURALO Board, so my point of view might well be affected by these roles I play. However, I would like to speak in my capacity of domain registrant.
>> I do own several domain names, all of them under .org or .eu. I am not at all afraid about potential raise of price of neither, because in both cases I do believe that these names are managed by registries that are responsible and are not going to do things that I would qualify as “silly”, like proceed with an exceptional raise od price. In the case of PIR, I would like to point out that the registry had the possibility, already under the current contract, to raise prices yearly - but has done it only in a small number of cases. Every time there has been a raise the matter has been discussed thoroughly by the Board, who has analysed the pros and cons, taking into account the potential benefits, the impact on the market, the impact on the image of the company. I don’t understand what would let us assume that, just because the new contract will give this possibility, PIR would change the behaviour it had over years and proceed to unmotivated raises, moreover if of unreasonable amount. I personally believe that to consider this as a possibility is disingenuous to say the least.
>> A second point is the effect of the raise of the price of a .org domain name on NGOs and small non-profits. Do we really think that for creating and maintaining an Internet presence the yearly fee for a domain name plays a relevant role?
>> The other criticism I have heard is about feeding ISOC - for instance, it has been said that more money to ISOC has resulted in increase in staff. This is probably true, but what really matters is what ISOC does for the Internet community - and in particular for underserved regions or users. A large amount of money goes to finance the IETF: my question is whether folks would prefer to have less funding to the IETF and therefore obliging the standardisation body to rely on contribution by the industry to develop standards? Would that really be better than having a couple of bucks of contribution by NGOs on their domain name - which, incidentally, is a rounding error in terms of cost for the IT infrastructure - and this even assuming that PIR would raise the price in the future, which is not at all a sure thing? Another question that I would ask is whether people know about projects, financed by ISOC, like the Tusheti Project that has brought the internet in a region in Georgia that was isolated from the rest of the country because of the difficulty of connecting it? Again, this is possible because some of the money that registrants pay for a .org domain name goes to financing projects like these. Of course, to coordinate more activities requires more staff. So what?
>> Last but not least, my personal opinion is that moving to a situation where the whole gTLD galaxy ends up in having the same contract provisions would be a good thing in a globalized market. I am much more worried about the registries that are not subject to common rules, like ccTLDs, who can for instance use practices banned by SSAC like the wildcard, rather than having a handful of “legacy” TLDs compliant with the contract that everybody else has. But, as I said, this is just my personal opinion as an Internet user and domain name registrant.
>> Best regards,
>> Roberto

Maureen Hilyard on 26 April:

Thank you Roberto.

Roberto Gaetano on 26 April:

>>> Hi Jacqueline, and all.
>>> I would love to be able to comply with your request. I do indeed have my own opinion, and in the coming weekend - I am now under pressure for other things - I will express it.
>>> However, as many of you know, the PIR Board has passed a motion to remove me as Board Chair in summer 2018, so I am under the impression that I am not well positioned to act as “speaker" for the PIR Board.
>>> This said, I promise to speak up, with the caveat that I will comment on the content of the agreement and the impact (from my point of view) on users and non-for-profit organization, not on anything else.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Roberto
>>>
Jacqueline Morris on 26 April:

>>>> Maureen, well said.
>>>> I would love to hear from the PIR Board as to their take on this.
>>>> Jacqueline

Maureen Hilyard on 25 April: 

>>>> I am against any price changes being allowed for legacy domains and I know that the DotAsia Board hasn't authorised any price hikes and we don't have a cap. The recent suggestions of price caps have provided focus on these so that there is a little bit of scaremongering (or "raising awareness" as George prefers to call it) going on I suspect.
>>>>
>>>>  .org is used by NGOs who would be sorely affected if the cost of  the domain rose significantly.  Interestingly Im on the PIR Advisory Committee and we haven't been notified by the PIR Board of the implications are of a price cap for .org or what their intentions are.
>>>>
>>>> Maureen

Marita Moll on 25 April:

>>>> Further to our discussions this week re: renewal of .org registry with removal of price cap -- it appears that there is a well organized campaign going on out there to scare people about potential rate hikes. That probably accounts for all those opposition letters we saw posted on the site that George Kirikos was referring to.
>>>>
>>>> See blog below:
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.namecheap.com_blog_keep-2Ddomain-2Dprices-2Din-2Dcheck_-3Futm-5Fsource-3DIterable-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DService-5FDomPriceIncrease-5F20190425&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=B12zzLOx6nzTaaWJSMjR8XPp9tDsfe7GTzhfmVjxGNo&s=aTjQ2TZjHiWn9wTSEuGFk-1_aKtfEXf-7Shc6sCUnpw&e=
>>>> Marita

Copy of mailing list - EE

Christopher Wilkinson on 29 April:

Good evening:  The most essential point is to maintain that ICANN is the default. backstop, responsible for the conditions of competition in the DNS.

The question as to whether PIR (and other legacy TLD Registries) and ICANN respect this principle in practice is secondary to the necessity to recognise and implement, when necessary, ICANN's responsibility.

CW

PS:  N.B.  Prices for Renewals will become more sensitive than prices for initial registrations of SLDs.

Initial Registrations:  Competition may apply if alternative names are available.
Renewals: The Registry normally holds a monopoly, which must be overseen by a regulator, in this case, i.e. ICANN.

Marita Moll on 29 April:

Hi Holly. It is not too late. We have an extension till May 2. I think a lot of people are agreeing with your concerns.

Marita

Holly Raiche on 29 April:

extension

Greg Shatan on 29 April:

I would be happy, Marita, to beef up the last line of the comment and make that aspect more substantial generally!   Please send your editorial suggestions.  As for what ICANN should do, one possibility is that ICANN reserves the right to roll back price increases, in whole or in part, if the price hikes are abusive or discriminatory.

All, I still hope that there is room for a comment here.  It would be particularly unfortunate if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal.  Roberto’s email encapsulates many of the reasons why.  I look at ISOC as almost

a sister organization of At-Large. 

No. Please don't equate ISOC with one Constituency of ICANN. Rather, ISOC's mission is larger than the DNS. While ICANN perceives limitations in it's mission, ISOC's policies and programs span way beyond, and what ISOC does results in what is good for the DNS.

As Roberto points out, ISOC works to accomplish many goals that it shares with At-Large.  ISOC also supports the IETF and even provides its corporate “home.”   PIR runs on similar principles.  PIR is not a run of the mill commercial registry.  In many ways, it was put into business by ISOC.  Yet the essence of the concerted campaign against .ORG is that PIR can’t be trusted to abstain from massive price increases, that ISOC could and possibly would push it to do so, and that ISOC is a parasitical organization sucking money out of other non-profits. I feel like we would be throwing ISOC under the bus if we fail to comment on the .ORG renewal in particular.  [Disclosure: I am the President & Chair of an At Large Structure that is also an ISOC Chapter, ISOC-NY.]

Originally, my draft dealt only with .org.  We could just go back to that focus.  We can leave a general discussion of price caps to one side if we don’t expand this to .biz and .info (and .asia doesn’t have price caps now).

Based on the discussions we had, I aimed to limit the comment to the concrete issues raised by the agreement rather than go beyond the agreement to some of the broader registry issues.  But that’s a question of approach and I’m fine with a broader statement.   Alternatively, we could decide not to comment on .biz and .info at all, limit the current statement to .org, and put in a brief UA statement for .asia.   But first we would have to get any drafts, revisions, etc. out on the table so we can see what we’re dealing with.

Even asking for an extension is a double-edged sword, since that keeps the doors open for more of the cut-and-paste comments that have been filed in opposition to these renewals.

Best regards,

Greg

Marita Moll on 27 April:

I am reading powerful arguments on both sides of this issue and then reading Greg's proposed comment again. In the particular case of .org, and should we decide to go in the direction that Greg has mapped, would it be possible to beef up the last line. It seems like a throw away but it could be a good bridge between the opposing points of view. The comment asks that ICANN "monitor" future price increases and any market responses to those increases. What should ICANN do if it decides the increases are unwarranted?

@Christopher -- eh bien, le poisson est encore vivant !!

Marita

Greg Shatan on 26 April:

Justine,

Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments.

Unfortunately, the “party” got rained out.  The CPWG decided not to approve this statement, whether it covers all the renewals or is limited to .ORG.  So nothing is being sent to the ALAC for their consideration. I think it’s a good statement, and it would be made better with your suggestions.  I am considering revising this draft, cutting the subject back to .ORG and submitting it individually.  Also, circulating it for others to submit — either individually or with multiple signatures.

In particular, I am concerned there are a number of comments being made that tend to denigrate PIR and ISOC.  This is something I would like to counter.  [Full disclosure: I am the President of ISOC-NY (an At-Large Structure) and participate here in that capacity.  However, I have not yet asked the ISOC-NY Board to consider endorsing this statement, so I am discussing it here in my individual capacity.]. I honestly think much of what has been said about PIR and ISOC has been untrue or exaggerated and fails to to give credit to ISOC for its mission and unique place in the internet ecosystem.

I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second draft.  I’m not comfortable leaving PIR and ISOC to be “thrown under the bus” by ill-informed and prejudicial comments.  If ALAC will not comment (or more precisely, if the CPWG wont send ALAC a draft comment for their consideration), then it behooves those who support this statement to submit it or use it as a basis for their own comments.

Best regards,

Greg

Justine Chew on 26 April:

Thanks to Greg Shatan for the 24 April draft statement.

My comments / suggestion are as follows:-

1. I wonder if it might be better to prepare (and submit) 2 statements instead of a consolidated one ie. one to address .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO and another for .ASIA.. This is because .ASIA had a "different playing field of no price caps" to begin with and in this way, any concerns about price cap removals for .BIZ, .ORG and .INFO can be addressed squarely in comparison with .NET and with reference to the ALAC's 2017 comment. Given that we don't seem to be offering comments to the inclusion of some RPMs.

2. In any case, the draft starts with "Background" but doesn't indicate where that backgrounder ends and where the present comment begins.

3. Related to the point about standardizing RAs as being a good approach, it be useful to draw attention to the use of Addendums as the controlled means for handling necessary variations.

4. Would it not be incumbent on At-Large to also support (or least comment on) regularizing the inclusion of PICs in these RA renewals (if any)?

5. As for UA, it's not clear (to me at least) what we want all ROs to do about it at this point. Given community interest on UA has increased further in recent meetings, actual responsibilities might be better framed in due course. So, it may be prudent to tackle the inclusion of UA into the base Registry Agreement by amending Specification 6, or possibly by way of a consensus policy addition in Specification 1, at a later date. 

Justine

(my apologies for being late to the "party")
-----