Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

02 May 2019

Proposed Renewal of .info Registry Agreement

Note: Extension for submission granted to 02 May, immediately after CPWG meeting. See ALAC Statement on Registry Agreements.

Other - Statement now being considered under a new wiki workspace: 

ALAC Statement on Registry Agreement Renewals .org, .biz and .info



Hide the information below, please click here 

FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 




FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.




DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

*24 April 2019 - Gregory Shatan

ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of the .ORG, .BIZ, .INFO and .ASIA Registry Agreements

1 Comment

  1. From: George Kirikos

    See comments in the discussion held with Glenn, Jonathan and Eduardo last week. Briefly, the URS represents a top-down imposition of new policy, without regards to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder. The RPM PDP working group is reviewing the URS, and one of the key questions is whether or not it should become consensus policy applicable to legacy TLDs. ICANN staff should not be predetermining that outcome by imposing it in contracts negotiated directly with registry operators. As for the pricing issue, those registries can already raise fees by 10% annually, and under a tender process the fees would be below USD $1/yr per domain (e.g. the .in ccTLD had a tender, and the fees were 70 cents/domain/year). Legacy gTLDs are inherently different than new gTLDs, and should not be treated the same with regards to the unlimited fee increases permitted in new gTLD registries (whose registries were bought and paid for). I also agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the Internet Commerce Association, as expressed in a recent letter. These comments are applicable to all 4 registry contracts that are open for public comment (.org, .biz, .info and .asia).