- comments-asia-renewal-27mar19@icann.org

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Ratified: ALAC Statement on Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement<https://community.icann.org/x/vBhIBg>. Content of the statement remains unchanged. Ratification information is included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Pending Ratification: ALAC Statement on Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement
by Edmon May 8, 2019

May 8, 2019

DotAsia welcomes the comment from At-Large. DotAsia has been a long-time advocate for Universal Acceptance (UA) and participates actively in UA efforts locally, regionally and globally, including through the UA Steering Group (UASG) supported by ICANN. DotAsia supports the push for TLD registries and registrars to become UA ready and believes that UA should be considered in the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, as part of the work on Subsequent Procedures (and implementation thereof), as well as in the IDN ccTLD processes. On the topic of “price caps”, since DotAsia is a Sponsored gTLD, we uphold additional commitments, responsibilities and obligations to the community we serve. DotAsia is a not-for-profit organization and believes strongly in the importance of operating the “.Asia” TLD in a responsible manner beneficial for the global Asian communities. As such, and as indicated by the At-Large comments, we have always maintained stable and effective policies aimed at protecting the interests of “.Asia” users, we have no intention to make any changes to our current pricing agreements and we will continue to maintain the stability of our normal per domain year renewal pricing to registrars. Sincerely, DotAsia Board of Directors

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Public Comment of Rabbi Shalom Arush, Head of the "Chut Shel Chessed" Institutions on Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement
by Rubin International Law Firm and Notary May 7, 2019

May 7, 2019

May 7th 2019 ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA Public comment on the Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement Executive Summary Renewal of the .asia registry agreement with DotAsia Organization Limited should be assessed against the background of the Internet addiction global problem. According to academic research, Internet addiction disorder (IAD) results in personal, family, and occupational problems. Internet addiction can be decomposed into several subtypes of behavior and impulse control problems, namely, Debauchery, cyber-relationship addiction, net compulsions, information overload, compulsive web surfing or database searches and net gaming. Internet gaming has been classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a disease in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). There is a large correlation between addiction to online social networks and generalized Internet addiction. The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that Facebook has created are destroying how society works and it is eroding the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other. Smartphones and the social media platforms they support are turning us into bona fide addicts. Platforms like Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram leverage the very same neural circuitry used by slot machines and cocaine to keep us using their products as much as possible. Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) ruins lives by causing neurological complications, psychological disturbances, and social problems. Smartphone or Internet addiction can also negatively impact your life by increasing loneliness and depression, fueling anxiety, increasing stress, exacerbating attention deficit disorders, diminishing your ability to concentrate and think deeply or creatively, disturbing your sleep and encouraging self-absorption. The psychopathological overlap between IA, substance addiction and pathological gambling suggests a common neurobiological substrate, involving a dopamine dysfunction of the neural reward systems. Debauchery destroys the brain. Lust and promiscuity, explains Nachman of Breslev, lead to a breakdown of logic, common sense and even insanity. The proof is that in this decadent age, so many people are in need of psychiatric medication, whereas millions suffer from anxiety and depression. All the people who are out of their minds, because they fell into the difficult disease of looking at women and all kinds of filthy movies on the Internet, on the iPhone, Facebook, etc., to the point of burning lust in real madness. Gambling is a terrible sickness, even more addictive than alcohol, tobacco and drugs. The lust for money is the root cause of gambling affliction, which not only drives a person insane, but makes him or her lose faith in the Creator, and truth and emuna in His Divine providence, Heaven forbid. The gambler is cruel to his family. The owners and operators of gambling parlors are outright murderers. ICANN, some ICANN-accredited registrars, some registry operators and some Domain Name Registrants are fostering Internet Addiction. DotAsia Organization Limited is fostering Internet addiction. Fostering Internet addiction is a disastrous violation of fundamental human rights and GAC Communiqué Beijing, Peoples Republic of China. Fostering Internet addiction by ICANN, some ICANN-accredited registrars, some registry operators and some Domain Name registrants is a violation of applicable laws. Fostering Internet addiction is a violation of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation, Board of Directors' Code of Conduct, Governance Guidelines, Commitments, Core Values and By-Laws. In view of the above, we require ICANN to terminate immediately the activities fostering Internet addiction, including the performance of relevant IANA functions, relevant gTLD activities, relevant Registry Operators' activities, relevant ICANN-accredited registrars' activities, including through RESP and amendments of registry and registrar agreements and to refrain from renewing the .asia registry agreement with DotAsia Organization Limited unless DotAsia Organization Limited and its related companies terminate immediately activities fostering Internet addiction and the .asia registry agreement is amended to prohibit Internet addiction activities. Rabbi Shalom Arush Head of the "Chut Shel Chessed" Institutions For the full article, please see the attachment. -------- The Universal Garden of Emuna Author: Rabbi Shalom Arush <https://www.breslev.co.il/storesearchresults.aspx?type=3&text=Rabbi+Shalom+ Arush&lid=1&minprice=0&maxprice=0&popular=0&new=0&pageid=1&language=English> The Universal Garden of Emuna Whats the consolation in knowing that the world is full of strife when our personal lives are a never-ending saga of stress, worry, anxiety and challenges? Making a living today is like being a 21st Century gladiator. Family units are falling apart and marital bliss seems like a pipedream. People face child-education problems that they never imagined. What can a person do to maintain sanity? If sanity is such a struggle, who dares to dream of genuine happiness, fulfillment and true inner peace? You do. As soon as you open up the first page of the new Universal Garden of Emuna by internationally acclaimed best-selling author Shalom Arush, whose books have helped millions of people around the globe live better lives, you gain the master-key to lifes locked doors, especially the doors to fulfilling your own personal potential. Far from flash-in-the-pan fad spirituality, the new non-denomenational Universal Garden of Emuna takes the reader by the hand along the proven path to satisfaction of the soul. By learning emuna the pure and simple faith in the Creator - the reader learns how to cultivate an intimate personal relationship with the Creator. This book will quickly become your best friend, a book youll want to read over and over! A complete and total life-changer! By world-renowned spiritual guide and bestselling author Shalom Arush, translated by Lazer Brody. Paperback, 406 information-packed pages, including an amazing new explanation of the Seven Noahide Commandments for all mankind. In English https://www.breslev.co.il/store/the_universal_garden_of_emuna/spirituality_a nd_faith/books.aspx?id=16146&language=english In French http://www.joie2vivre.org/produit/le-jardin-universel-de-la-foi/ In Spanish - https://www.breslev.co.il/store/en_el_jard%C3%ADn_de_la_fe_universal_gu%C3%A Da_pr%C3%A1ctica_de_vida_para_todo_ser_humano_en_espa%C3%B1ol/rabino_arush_y _autoayuda/libros.aspx?id=23093 <https://www.breslev.co.il/store/en_el_jard%C3%ADn_de_la_fe_universal_gu%C3% ADa_pr%C3%A1ctica_de_vida_para_todo_ser_humano_en_espa%C3%B1ol/rabino_arush_ y_autoayuda/libros.aspx?id=23093&language=spanish> &language=spanish Rubin International Law Firm and Notary 11 Avinoam Yelin Street Jerusalem Israel info(a)advrubin.com <mailto:info@advrubin.com> naftali.rubin(a)gmail.com <mailto:naftali.rubin@gmail.com> +972-544-705-200

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Intellectual Property Constituency Comments re Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement
by Brian Scarpelli May 7, 2019

May 7, 2019

On behalf of the Intellectual Property Constituency, please find attached comments on the proposed renewal of .asia Registry Agreement. The IPC appreciates this opportunity to comment, and aims to work with ICANN and other stakeholders moving forward to help in any way we can. Best, Brian Scarpelli Senior Global Policy Counsel +1 517-507-1446<mailto:+1%20517-507-1446> | bscarpelli(a)actonline.org<mailto:bscarpelli@actonline.org> ACT | The App Association 1401 K St NW (Ste 501) Washington, DC 20005

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Proposed Renewal of .ASIA Registry Agreement
by Steve DelBianco May 7, 2019

May 7, 2019

Attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), regarding the Proposed Renewal of .ASIA Registry Agreement. This Comment was drafted by Vivek Goyal and Steve DelBianco. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] .asia price increase is not acceptable
by Peter Leuzinger May 7, 2019

May 7, 2019

ICANN In our customer base, we have cients that are complaining about price increases in the domain name space. In particular, .asia should not increase in price. Thanks, Peter Leuzinger -- _________________________________________________________ Sicher sicher sein - Safe be safe global IP action AG, Bahnhofstrasse 3, CH-8808 Pfäffikon Peter Leuzinger, CEO *https://www.globalipaction.ch * M +41 79 660 86 35 T. +41 55 420 11 12 F. +41 55 420 11 13 E. p.leuzinger(a)globalipaction.ch Skype: peterleuzinger The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or the use of, or taking any action in reliance upon this information by person or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from the computer. global IP action AG and its partners reserve the right to retain, intercept and monitor any e-mail communication through its networks if legally allowed.

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Stop the .asia price increase and URS!
by Konstantinos Zournas May 7, 2019

May 7, 2019

I am a .asia registrant and I strongly oppose uncapped price increases in .asia domains and the introduction of URS. Shame on you ICANN for even suggesting a comment period for such despicable changes to the legacy extensions: .org (PIR), .biz (Neustar), .info (Afilias) and .asia (DotAsia Organisation Ltd. and Afilias). How does ICANN justifies these huge price increases on domain names that cost less than $1 to maintain and operate? Shame and disgust on the privileged registries that have made millions over the past few years from us all. Us all the domain name registrants that come from all over the world. "Legacy" TLDs, such as .org .net .com .biz .info and .asia, have absolutely nothing in common with all new gTLDs. Legacy extensions were created 15 to 30 years before the new gtlds and are essentially a monopoly on the internet. All 1000+ new gtlds represent less than 5% of all domains. The 10+ legacy tlds have the other 95% of the market share. dotAsia Organisation Limited, PIR, Afilias, Neustar and Neustar did not create these extensions as it happened with the New gTLDs and they certainly did not or currently have any competition. New gTLDs companies paid millions in auctions to get the rights of these extensions. What would happen if the legacy TLDs were put up for auction with today’s capped price increases? Other companies would pay millions to have the privilege of being one of the respective extension operator. Popular New gtld extensions were auctioned of for millions while the legacy extensions were simply awarded to be operated by the respective registries. Verisign paid $135 million for the rights of .web domains. How much do you think the .com registry would be auctioned today? Even if .com prices were set at $3 or $5 the high bidder registry would probably end up paying billions. These legacy extensions were NOT created by dotAsia Organisation Limited, PIR, Afilias, Neustar or Verisign. The extensions existed before these companies and will exist after these companies. These are not their extensions. They are our extensions. And by our I am talking about the registrants around the world. And some people in the US this they own the extensions. They don’t. The legacy extensions belong to the whole world. ICANN should stop catering to the big registries and pay more attention to protect the owners of .asia domain names. The registries have made billions of dollars over the past 20 years. The registries are already operating a ridiculously high profit margin (65%-70% or even higher) that are not met in any other industry. The Verisign .com monopoly reported last week a huge operating margin that was 65.4 percent for the first quarter of 2019. Instead of being grateful for this gift that it is being given all the legacy registries are asking for domain name price increases. It is time that all legacy contracts are put up for grabs for a more competitive prices. The .com extension can be operated for maybe $2 or $3 per domain and companies would pay millions to have the privilege to operate the extension at this level. Same with .asia domains. Companies would easily pay a couple of billion to operate the .com at $5 per domain for the next 6 years. Or they could easily pay 500 million to operate the .com registry at $3 per domain for the next 6 years. Yet ICANN strangely allows this Verisign, Afilias, PIR and Neustar greed and arrogance. It makes you think what "organization" ICANN has become over the past few years... Instead of price increases with should be having price decreases on all legacy extensions including .org domains. New domain extensions charge any price they want and they have been a disaster so far. Registries are suddenly increasing registration and renewal fees of up to 3,000%!!!! Lots of people are complaining because of this and this has already been very bad for the domain name industry’s reputation. .Asia has the right to raise prices 10% every year that already too much and well above the current inflation. Allowing huge price increases from one year to the next could ruin .asia for everybody. The .asia registry or any other legacy extension operator must not be allowed to raise prices are they wish. These domain names belong to the whole world and not just these 4-5 registry companies. They are only paid to be the administrative operator and nothing more. And the current price is well above what the current price for a new gtld backend is. New gtlds backend registries are charging $1 per domain or less. These are companies like Afilias, PIR and Neustar that are now getting paid $10+ from us the world domain name registrants and yet they want a lot more. And ICANN is surprisingly willing to give them whatever they want instead of doing their job that is to protect the registrants. Increasing .asia and other legacy tld prices will be a disaster. What happens if prices go to $100 per domain or $1,000 per domain? This is about the whole effect this will have on the global. How is such a huge price increase justified? An increase of all legacy domains (lets say about 200 million of legacy domains) from $10 to $100 per year would mean that an extra 180 BILLION dollars will go to just 4 companies over the next 10 years. 4 US companies. How is this justified? All these domain name registrants now pay about 20 billion over 10 years. They will have to pay 200 BILLION dollars at $100!!! Or 2 trillion at $1,000 per domain! Greece's gross domestic product is about 200 billion per year. We would love to take over these extensions and run a few servers around the world. This is free money. Companies have already paid for the rights of their .asia, .org, .info or .com domains. Any price increase would effectively mean that dotAsia Organisation Limited, Afilias, Verisign or PIR would cease our domains and make us pay rent on them. This is domain name confiscation!!! Before you know it your company or personal .asia domain will cost $200 or $3,000 per year or $10,000 per year depending on what dotAsia Organisation Limited decides that you have to pay them depending on the domain name. They will essentially confiscate our domains (that we either bought years ago or even paid thousands or millions to purchase) and make us pay them rent on them. At this point new gtld prices are held down because of the capped legacy TLDs prices. If legacy domain prices get to $200 per domain per year then all domains will cost $200 or more. Or $1,000 or more. There is little competition in all domain names as dotAsia Organisation Limited, Verisign, PIR, Afilias and Neustar are basically monopolies. They have a 95% market share. It only takes these 4 companies and soon all domain names could cost $200 or $500 or more. Practically these large companies are attempting to steal all our land and homes and rent them back to us. Domain names are our land and homes on the internet. This attempt is only possible with the help of ICANN and their executives that hide behind a non-profit organization while making millions in salaries and while NOT protecting the domain name registrants. We are now paying an administrative fee to these companies. An administrative is pretty much set in competitive world. New gtlds are paying $1 or less per domain. But there is no competition in these registries. They are essentially monopolies that will be able to charge us whatever they want if ICANN allows them to have no price caps. Anything above $2 or $3 per year is already too expensive for the backend registries that dotAsia Organisation Limited, Verisign, PIR, Afilias and Neustar truly are. Finally .ASIA domains don’t need the URS. There have been a lot of bad decisions under the UDRP from the unregulated UDRP providers. The URS is even worse. Konstantinos Zournas OnlineDomain.com

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Pending Ratification: ALAC Statement on Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 7, 2019

May 7, 2019

Dear All, Please find attached the ALAC statement regarding the Proposed Renewal of .asia Registry Agreement<https://community.icann.org/x/vBhIBg>. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process with a note that the statement is pending ALAC ratification. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Comment re .ASIA registry renewal from John Poole, DomainMondo.com
by John Poole May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

Comment re .ASIA registry renewal from John Poole, DomainMondo.com is attached (pdf).

1 0

[Comments-asia-renewal-27mar19] Comments of Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. opposing proposed .org, .info, .biz and .asia contract renewals
by George Kirikos May 3, 2019

May 3, 2019

Submitted by: George Kirikos Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. Website: http://www.leap.com/ Date: April 29, 2019 We write to oppose the proposed contract renewals posted by ICANN for the .org, .info, .biz and .asia contracts, as posted for public comments at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/info-renewal-2019-03-18-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/biz-renewal-2019-04-03-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/asia-renewal-2019-03-27-en While our arguments are focused on the .org TLD, to the extent that the contractual terms are similar for the other TLDs, we repeat the same comments for .info, .biz and .org. Indeed, while the majority of the thousands of public comments to date have focused on .org, ICANN should read those comments as also applying to .info, .biz and .org, even if the submitters did not explicitly submit their comments to all 4 email addresses. 1. We support and endorse the great groundswell of opposition as expressed in the thousands of thoughtful public comments opposed to these proposed agreements. It is shocking that ICANN did not learn its lesson from 2006, when similar massive opposition existed for comparable contracts which would have allowed for unlimited fee increases: https://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement/ The proposed contracts are simply unconscionable, and ICANN should instead simply extend the existing contracts by another 6 or 10 years, rather than make any other changes. 2. Within the At-Large, we had a video discussion/debate, archived at: https://freespeech.com/2019/04/10/impact-of-the-urs-and-unlimited-fee-incre… https://youtu.be/KW3I1oFGbv0 where many of the points below are discussed, and I include them here by reference. 3. We particularly agree with the comments and/or blogs submitted/posted by: a) Nat Cohen / Telepathy: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003067.h… http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_eliminat… b) NameCheap: https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/ c) Zak Muscovitch / Internet Commerce Association: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/000006.h… d) Jay Chapman / Digimedia: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/002967.h… e) Andrew Allemann: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003091.h… 4. It should be noted that in the past ICANN trumpeted lower fees as one of its main achievements. For example, the testimony of ICANN General Counsel and Secretary John Jeffrey at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg30233/html/CHRG-109hhrg3023… "STATEMENT OF JOHN JEFFREY, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) ... Among ICANN's main achievements are the following: ... Market competition. Market competition for generic top-level domain registrations established by ICANN has ****lowered domain name cost in some instances as much as 80 percent with savings for both consumers and businesses.****" (emphasis added) It is not consistent with those past statements for ICANN to abrogate its responsibilities, and permit unlimited fee increases by registry operators. Unlimited fee increases are not in the public interest, and do not even attempt to balance the needs of registrants against those of registry operators. ICANN was handed a responsibility to balance the interest of affected stakeholders when it achieved (against our wishes) independence from US government oversight, and it's now clear that it is not living up to those commitments given such one-sided contracts that have been presented here for public comment. Unlimited fee increases are not balanced, and do not promote stability of the internet or competition. ICANN is engaging in corporate welfare and/or crony capitalism through such anti-competitive proposals as are here before us. 5. As has been pointed out by others, under competition the cost of providing registry services (really just the management of a central database plus the operation of various nameservers) would be under USD $1.00 per domain name per year. This is evidenced by the .IN (India) tender, where Neustar beat Afilias with a winning bid of USD $0.70 per domain name per year (70 cents/domain/yr): http://domainincite.com/23364-afilias-sues-india-to-block-12-million-neusta… A similar competitive tender process happened in France: https://www.thedomains.com/2012/08/07/afnic-awarded-new-contract-to-run-fr-… where AFNIC had to lower the wholesale fees for .FR domain names, and the contract was for 5 years. Similar competitions are held for the .US ccTLD: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/press/2007/Neustar_101907.html You'll note that registry operators do not have presumptive renewal in those ccTLD contracts, yet are more than willing and able to compete effectively and make investments. It was a major policy blunder of ICANN to have agreed in the past to presumptive renewal, a decision that has had a multi-billion dollar negative impact upon registrants, compared to a situation where there are regular competitive tenders. Even the US government has argued for those competitive tenders for both initial agreements and for renewals of agreements: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf (Ms. Garza's analysis begins on the 3rd page of the PDF, after the covering letter by Ms. Baker of the NTIA) The absence of such competitive tenders can only be rectified through the protective fee caps which have been long established, and which the registry operators themselves have agreed to since the times they entered into their respective agreements. If current registry operators are not prepared to renew the existing contracts (which have fee caps in place), then there would be no shortage of other prospective registry operators who would be prepared to step in and replace them (and at a much lower cost, with fee caps in place). Indeed, ICANN themselves have argued (in court) that such caps are *pro-competitive*, see: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-reply-on-cfit-26may06-en.… "....in a single supplier market, price caps are, if anything, procompetitive (Mot. at 13-14);" (line 13, page 6 of 15) 6. We would like to openly make ICANN the following offer: We will run the .org registry for USD $5 per domain name per year, and keep all other existing terms the same. [We would then simply subcontract it to one of the many registry operators who would bid for the job at USD $1 per domain per year or less, and pocket the difference!] This is lower than the $9.93 per domain name per year that PIR currently charges. ICANN cannot of course accept this improved deal, even if it wanted to, because its hands are tied by the foolish decision to agree to presumptive renewal in the past. Looking forward, an agreement to permit unlimited fee increases in the future (far beyond the already generous 10% per year permitted increases) would similarly hamper ICANN's ability to negotiate future "win-win" deals, giving it no negotiating leverage in the future, as it would have already given away the farm if it entered into this proposed agreement. Agreeing to permit unlimited fee increases is like letting the genie out of the bottle, as there's no way that registry operators will ever agree to voluntarily undo such a change in the future. Presumptive renewal means that registry operators can safely ignore any future attempts by ICANN to renegotiate. This is why these contractual changes are so important, because they'll be impossible to fix in the future (without giving up even more to registry operators, e.g. via a buyout or something). This alone should be reason for caution. Given there's no urgency to making a change (i.e. registry operators have *falling* costs, not increasing costs), then the status quo should prevail. 6. Some have suggested that the Internet Society and/or PIR would never raise fees by a large amount. However, "hope is not a strategy." Past performance is no guarantee of the future. Leadership can change, as can priorities/missions. It's clear from section 7.5 of the the draft contract itself: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18m… that ISOC/PIR could simply sell or assign the registry contract to another entity (e.g. Private Equity, just as registry operator Donuts was sold by its founders), and that new owner/entity could take the heat for future egregious fee increases. ICANN would not be able to stop such a deal. Such a sale would allow ISOC to create a huge endowment for itself worth billions of dollars, given that .org is arguably the second most desirable gTLD, after only .com. 7. The ability to renew a domain name for 10 years is not sufficient protection for registrants. Eventually the bill will come due, and nothing can offset the enormous switching costs. Any goodwill/links/etc. built up will be reduced to zero, totally destroying one's investment in one's web identity that may have been built up over 20+ years (even longer than ICANN has existed, in many cases). URLs that have been printed in offline media such as books, DVDs, etc. can't be updated, thus it's impossible for many to simply stop renewing after 10 years and switch, as some people will still see the old URL. E-mails aren't forwarded by the new registrants to those of past registrants, meaning that all existing email addresses can't easily transition to a new domain name without risk. Business cards would need to be reprinted (and can't be "recalled" from past recipients). Registrants expect URLs to be permanent, not transitory. Registrants of legacy gTLDs like com/net/org own their domain names, and are not temporary tenants (like those in the failed new gTLDs). 8. One of the reasons prospective registrants rationally avoid new gTLDs is the lack of certainty over potential future fee increases. As one submission pointed out, they are "leery" of such one-sided contracts, and for good reason. Those failures of the new gTLDs experiment should not be allowed to contaminate the successful and proven legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org. Indeed, if there is to be any harmonization of contracts, the "base agreement" should be that of the successful .com/net/org TLDs which included fee caps, rather than have the future be modeled on the the failed new gTLDs program. Registrants of new gTLDs knew the problems with the lack of price caps, and foolishly agreed to them before registration. Changing the rules for existing registrants of legacy gTLDs is unacceptable, as this amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game, rules which would never have been acceptable to most prior to registration. One submission suggested that as each new gTLD matures, or reaches a critical mass, it should then transition to the legacy contracts. That was a wise suggestion, to bridge the failed new gTLD program with the successful legacy gTLDs. 9. Even ISOC/PIR doesn't enter into such one-sided agreements, given that its own supplier/subcontractor (Afilias) had to win a competitive tender to retain the contract for managing the back-end of the registry (presumably at an even lower fee than it agreed to years ago -- fees would be able to be estimated once the relevant IRS Form 990 forms become public). https://domainnamewire.com/2016/02/16/32-million-org-contract-up-for-bids/ https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/14/org-sticks-afilias-backend/ It's entirely inconsistent that Internet Society doesn't give presumptive renewal and/or permits unlimited fee increases for its own suppliers, yet wants such things for themselves. 10. We oppose the ability for the registry operators to unilaterally create and impose their own mandatory RPMs upon registrants. See, for example: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-addendum-18… "Specification 7, § 1 The terms of Section 1 of Specification 7 are hereby amended and restated in their entirety as follows: “Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator ******may develop and implement RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights.****** Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN-accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD.” (page 6, emphasis added) This should be left to the GNSO, to develop only policies that have consensus, and which balance the needs of both rights holders and registrants. For example, suppose PIR (or another registry operator) was allowed to unilaterally create a RPM on their own which allowed for complaints to be filed for a fee of $100, but which required registrants post a $1 million bond if they wish to file any response to the complaint. Such a one-sided policy could be created by a registry operator under the proposed terms, and would ignore the requirement that ICANN policies need to balance the concerns of all affected stakeholders (including registrants). 11. We also oppose the searchable WHOIS, which ignores the ongoing EPDP on WHOIS: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18m… (page 37) "Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Registry Operator must offer a searchable Whois service compliant with the requirements described in Section 1.10 of Specification 4 of this Agreement." as it doesn't properly balance the privacy rights of registrants against those who would go on fishing expeditions. A searchable WHOIS system should only ever be adopted, if and only if the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) equally becomes public and searchable, in return. If the TMCH is kept secret and non-searchable, then the WHOIS should not be searchable either. 12. Additional RPMs that were developed for new gTLDs were the result of bad predictions that were made of massive cybersquatting prior to the adoption of the program. For example, in testimony before the US government: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg74251/html/CHRG-112shrg7425… "First, the immediate costs imposed on business is likely to be in the multi billions of dollars." "This Program in aggregate has multi-billion dollar implications for all marketers, both in the commercial and the nonprofit sectors, and their brands. It would cause irreparable harm and damage to the entire online business community. It would throw the domain name universe into substantial confusion for both marketers and consumers." "So there are billions of dollars that are going to be spent and it's not going to be providing a use for the economy." "And when we're talking about billions of dollars here, when we're talking about companies with 3,000 or more brands, even big companies will be facing really large expenses. So this is a very, very significant economic issue for this country and for the world." "An unlimited expansion of the TLDs will cost the business community billions of dollars." "The unlimited expansion of TLDs would dramatically increase the cost and complexity for trademark holders to protect their rights. The immediate cost imposed on businesses is likely to be in the billions of dollars." "We believe ICANN's gTLD program would impose billions of dollars in unnecessary costs on the restaurant industry at a time when restaurant operators are looking forward to investing in their businesses and hiring employees after the worst recession in decades." These predictions exaggerated and overestimated the actual risk that was realized by the launch of new gTLDs. Thus, the justification for the adoption of the URS and other RPMs turned out to be false predictions, and should now be undone. They were never intended for, nor should be imposed upon, registrants of legacy gTLDs. Prospective registry operators at the time were willing to accept such terms, as the trademark lobby threatened to thwart and delay the release of new gTLDs unless their demands were met. Registry operators were blinded by dollar signs in their eyes, for example, predictions by Name.Space: "Name.Space, whose business has a potential value of over 1 billion dollars, has been deprived the opportunity to fully launch and operate its portfolio of gTLD properties under what we believe is the most responsible, fair, and ethical practices yet to be employed in the commercial domain name industry." (same link as above for testimony) 13. Given that the RPM PDP of the GNSO is actively reviewing the URS, including determining whether or not it should be a consensus policy, no steps should be taken by ICANN staff and/or the registry operators to unilaterally impose it upon registrants. Indeed, there are numerous proposals to actively change the URS (including a proposal to explicitly eliminate it), see: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals (click the "Individual URS Proposal" tab to see the 33 individual proposals, 14 of them from us) The current URS is deeply flawed. For example of just one of the defects, currently complaints are required to be in English (unlike the language rules for the UDRP, where complaints must be in the language of the registration agreement, which varies by registrar). Thus, many registrants defending a URS dispute have no idea what the actual URS complaint is about, if they do not understand English. This is particularly egregious, given that new gTLDs are most popular in China. Such flawed RPMs whose creation was rushed before the launch of new gTLDs, and which are tilted in favour of large multinational companies, need to be reviewed and corrected before they are ever adopted for legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org. 14. In conclusion, ICANN's proposed contracts represent a failure of the multi-stakeholder model, and are instead evidence that ICANN has been captured by registry operators. ICANN claims these contracts are the result of a negotiation, yet what did registrants receive in return for these contractual changes? We received absolutely nothing in return, except for higher fees and higher regulatory burdens (via the imposition of the URS), with all the gains being received by the registry operators at the expense of registrants. That's not a negotiation -- that's a giveaway. We expect and demand that ICANN and the registry will simply extend the current contracts, rather than enter into these one-sided arrangements. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1