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).
01 May draft by Justine Chew:
v4-CLEAN-Draft ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewals of the ORG BIZ INFO Registry Agreements.DOCX
30 April draft by Gregory Shatan:
#4244345-v3-Draft ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of the ORG Registry Agreement.pdf
24 April draft presented by Gregory Shatan during 24 April CPWG:
7 Comments
Evin Erdogdu
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")
>
Evin Erdogdu
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
Evin Erdogdu
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:
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")
-----
Evin Erdogdu
Copy of mailing list - EE
Alan Greenberg on 29 April:
In my mind, the issue, particularly for .ORG, is two-fold
1. ICANN's determination to have uniform Registry Agreements. This is reasonable from a purely administrative point of view, despite it not being followed for .NET. But I will point out that this is an administrative and contract issue and has never, in my recollection, been subject to a community decision. ANd indeed the .NET example demonstrates that it is not an absolute.
2. .ORG is targetted (if not limited) to organizations that generally are in the public interest, and thus of interest to At-Large. There are somewhat over 10 million of them and it is reasonable to presume that many million of them are public-service type organizations that have registered under .ORG based on its perceived focus area but may well have presumed that the price they paid to start would not increase radically.
PIR has regularly raised prices in the past. Although they have not raised prices recently, they now have a new CEO and a new Chair of the Board. Given that, past behaviour is NOT necessarily a predictor of future actions.
Alan
Marita Moll on 29 April:
I don't think the matter is closed with respect to whether or not At-large was submitting a comment. I believe the e-mail list and the calls function together, not independently from each other. Not everyone can always make the calls. And many prefer to put their thoughts down on the list.
So, yes, tomorrow on our call, we will have a lot more information and much better idea where our community stands as the discussion continues
Marita
George Kirikos on 29 April:
We already agreed on last week's call that folks can submit
Evin Erdogdu
Copy of mailing list - EE
Carlton Samuels on 29 April:
Some more grist to the mill......the USDoJ argument referred - and should be accessible in the pdf - is not loading but I do have a copy from way back, if y'all cannot get to it.
https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/29/the-economics-of-domain-name-prices/ [domainnamewire.com]
-Carlton
Jonathan Zuck on 29 April:
Agree. I think the argument that we WANT higher prices is much stronger than trying to predict outcomes.
Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
Bastiaan Goslings on 29 April:
Hi Jonathan,
Thank you, interesting:
Jonathan Zuck on 29 April:
>
> I think you're quite right to ask for a rationale for removing the price caps and suggesting that any price hike might be minimal doesn't scratch that itch. One argument that has been made is that we want the contracts to be normalized. There are more obligations placed in the new gTLDs including PICs, RPMs, etc. that we want to become standard across all gTLDs.
>
> However, the strongest, albeit counterintuitive argument for the removal of price caps is that we actually WANT higher prices. It became obvious to the CCT Review Team that the caps represent a price point with which it is difficult for new entrants to compete and that an increase in the median price of gTLDs would likely be good for competition.
>
> Furthermore, Evan made the argument at the end of the CPWG call that from an end user perspective, gTLDs we're dramatically underpriced. His rationale was that domains should not be commodities. For non-registrant end users this has led to more confusion, phishing and fraud. For potential registrants this has led to fewer choices in the primary market because it's too easy to buy and hold huge portfolios of names and auction them to the highest bidder. Finally, for the registrant the issue is the same as the end user in that it has led to the registration of many confusingly similar strings allowing for typo squatting and other more nefarious uses.
>
> So while it might be hard to wrap our minds around, an increase in the median price of gTLDs would very likely lead to a decrease in the average price and the cost to maintain one.
Bastiaan Goslings (in reply to JZ):
I understand your (Evan’s?) line of reasoning, have heard it before, and I do not doubt its validity. However I assume the ‘dramatically underpriced gTLDs’ here are not .org and .net, right? But gTDLs from the new rounds. Which might imply the need for a price floor.
Anyway. If it does apply to .org I do not understand how we can argue for removing the price cap because it would be a good thing if the registry fee for of a domain significantly increases, like you say, while on the other hand suggesting that people should not be concerned because an expected price increase will be minimal and therefore has no impact on usage.
regards
Bastiaan
Evin Erdogdu
Copy of mailing list - EE
George Kirikos on 26 April:
Hi folks,
You're conflating 2 different issues, Greg. The registry operators
charge *fees* for registry services (i.e. managing a central database,
the zone file, the nameservers that spit back the nameservers for the
various domain names in that registry). The market value of those
services are below $1/yr/domain (e.g. 70 cents per domain per year for
the .IN ccTLD, as per their recent tender won by Neustar).
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_23976-2Dneustar-2Dcompletes-2Din-2Dmigration&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=UYmOO3CcFLu4mP6d0k8LE6zjEoYEvAwcG03Y-kWbkjs&s=mlR4bxEzGB8Nx6lLeV8e0DoCDodUGeimPtesEo6cSig&e=
The secondary market or aftermarket is a marketplace for the asset
value of the domain names themselves, which is an entirely different
market than that for registry services.
To understand this distinction, consider a trademark registry, like
the USPTO, which has a fee structure for the services they provide for
the registration and maintenance of trademarks. Those fees are
entirely unrelated to the value of the trademark itself. A trademark
owned by Google for "GOOGLE" or by Nike for "JUST DO IT" has set fees,
and Google or Nike are free to sell, assign, license, etc. those
trademarks to others at whatever the market will bear. Companies like
Hilco Streambank routinely auction off the IP of companies, including
their trademarks, see:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hilcostreambank.com_closed-2Ddeals&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=UYmOO3CcFLu4mP6d0k8LE6zjEoYEvAwcG03Y-kWbkjs&s=UMyi_d2WZP4KyaIMCYlu3bQ02pZ9MvWdNnXHmM2I9yQ&e=
and of course, owners of TMs do these kinds of transactions all the
time. For example, Hooters sold their trademark for $60 million.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bizjournals.com_tampabay_stories_2001_04_09_story1.html&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=UYmOO3CcFLu4mP6d0k8LE6zjEoYEvAwcG03Y-kWbkjs&s=G9X1kWw_9eRBAhorv9R39xqFWoP8iKJ_W3br9GmlSi4&e=
The same comparison exists for a land registry and houses. Or a
copyright registry, and the copyrighted works. The story of the
Beatles catalog makes interesting reading:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.billboard.com_articles_columns_rock_7662519_beatles-2Dcatalog-2Dpaul-2Dmccartney-2Dbrief-2Dhistory-2Downership&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=UYmOO3CcFLu4mP6d0k8LE6zjEoYEvAwcG03Y-kWbkjs&s=89ztKAta82MC1exjtxfT4YSCOUTc7jcl1dyQNMYlDkU&e=
and that catalog only has value due to the copyrights (once those
copyrights expire, the works fall into the public domain, and the
works are free for everyone to use).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
Justine Chew
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to Bastiaan's and Holly's request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and Olivier's request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith a copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by Maureen.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:-
(a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps.
(b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
I am handing this v4 over to Gregory Shatan for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!
Thank you all in advance for your consideration.
Justine