May 2019 - comments-biz-renewal-03apr19@icann.org

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] Dot BIZ
by D. D. May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

Hello, I oppose the fact that ICANN wants to remove price caps for .biz domains. Because price increases decrease the possibility of buying domains for those who live in poor countries, for example. Your action stops both the domain and the Internet industry as a whole. Such actions are discriminatory and inadequate. Raising domain prices unambiguously is biased. I'm ashamed of you. Regards, Darius Davainis, Marius Davainis Tomas Davainis

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement
by Karen Allen May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

Removing the price ceiling from a domain opens it up to increases that could eliminate the possibility for anyone to get an affordable domain. This case is similar to what’s happening in the battle of Net Neutrality. The concept of the internet makes it a level playing field for many who do not have the resources to compete in the market place physically. The people want internet that is accessible to ALL. Let’s maintain the opportunities for EVERYONE to contribute to the knowledge and services of mankind and benefit from the diversity from which it came. KEEP THE PRICE CEILING IN-TACT. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] Stop the .BIZ price increase and URS!
by Konstantinos Zournas May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

Stop the .BIZ price increase and URS! I am a .biz registrant and I strongly oppose uncapped price increases in .biz 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. Neustar, PIR and Afilias 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 Neustar, PIR, Afilias 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 .biz 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 .biz 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. .BIz 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 .biz for everybody. The .biz 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 .biza 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 .biz, .org, .info or .com domains. Any price increase would effectively mean that Neustar, 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 .biz domain will cost $200 or $3,000 per year or $10,000 per year depending on what Neustar 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 Neustar, Verisign, PIR and Afilias 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 Verisign, PIR, Afilias and Neustar truly are. Finally .BIZ 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

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] No to price increases
by HOSTMASTER WEB May 9, 2019

May 9, 2019

WHOIS PRIVACY, operator of the .LGBTR.COM domain registration for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Resources or Races, is publicly exposed to comment. Everyone knows that ICANN is adopting malicious practices against society and dangerous behavior with the sole purpose of generating huge profits for the board and its employees. Removing the price cap on heirloom gTLDs or gTLDs created in the 2000s is a way for ICANN to be able to earn more and satisfy the egos of its directors and employees. ICANN Officers, like most of their staff, want to have money from domain registrants. We can not allow ICANN to decide on matters of public interest. The ideal is the separation of ISOC and ICANN. www.whoisprivacy.lgbtr.com tld-admin-poc(a)whoisprivacy.lgbtr.com <tld-admin-poc(a)whoisprivacy.lgbtr.com>

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] Do Not Uncap .Biz Pricing
by Max Menius May 8, 2019

May 8, 2019

The case for maintaining regulated pricing on .biz renewals is obvious, and goes straight to the basic concept of fairness. The registry and ICANN both know that many thousands of businesses rely on a predictable price structure. A company’s brand and livelihood are inextricably connected to their adopted domain name. Switching from historical capped pricing to “unregulated pricing" is the equivalent of deliberately exploiting tragedy for personal gain, i.e. raising the price of a bottle of water 20x following flood or natural disaster. You can do it, but it makes you an unconscionable exploiter of human tragedy. The real issue here is whether those in control of ICANN (and the registry) have a conscience, and are willing to make intelligent, fair decisions that honor existing stakeholders. Max Menius May 8, 2019

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] Comment re .BIZ registry renewal from John Poole, DomainMondo.com
by John Poole May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

Comment re .BIZ registry renewal from John Poole, DomainMondo.com is attached (pdf) and also below: Re: Proposed Renewal of .biz Registry Agreement I am a gTLD domain names registrant, and* oppose* the proposed *.BIZ* renewal registry agreement, as I have also opposed the currently pending proposals for generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs)* .ORG, .INFO, .ASIA.* *Reasons for opposition:* *1.* All of those reasons set out in the comment submitted by Zak Muscovitch on behalf of the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-biz-renewal-03apr19/2019q2/000166.h…> (of which I am NOT a member), as if fully set out herein, and with which I fully concur. In accordance with ICANN’s own bylaws, it is simply wrong and inappropriate for ICANN org management and staff on its own, to “make policy” in regard to legacy gTLDs, such as .BIZ, by deleting all pricing controls and allowing unlimited price gouging by registry operators, and applying RPM and other policies specifically adopted for new gTLDs, but *not* other gTLDs, especially when those same RPMs and policies are currently under review for further revisions by the “ICANN community.” ICANN org ALWAYS fails to represent the interests of domain name registrants (which indicates ICANN is a *domain-name-industry-captured-organization*), and its process for ALL gTLD registry renewals needs a complete overhaul in conformance with advice from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3zjyRMTBSc7UzViS0stOWhQR3c/view?usp=shari…> discussed further below, attached to this letter from NTIA <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08…> to ICANN. In addition I concur with EFF’s .ORG comment <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003200.h…> as also *applicable to ALL gTLDs*, as if fully set out herein, *and* the following which is also *applicable to ALL gTLDs *(emphasis added): The economics of domain name prices-- https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/29/the-economics-of-domain-name-prices/ : “… *high switching costs* make domain owners hostages to the registries that operate their domains. They simply have to pay whatever they are charged. The cost to switch is too much. For this reason, *renewal costs must be capped*. *How domain registration and renewal costs should be managed*--*Some* top level domains have *market power* at the *time of registration*. *All top level domains have tremendous power over registrants at the time of renewal*. For this reason, ICANN should consider *capping initial registry fees* for top level domains that have some level of *market power, such as .com and .org*. It should *limit prices on all domains at the time of renewal*. The organization [ICANN] has stated that registrants have some protection because they can renew domains for up to ten years at current prices before price hikes take effect. There are two problems with this. First, the registries must notify the registrars of the price increase. It’s up to the registrars to notify customers. Busy customers might overlook these notices or not have the cash to renew for ten years today. Second, and most importantly, this just kicks the can down the road. *What does a company do ten years from now when it has to pay the new rates*?” *2.* Those reasons set out in *my comment* <https://drive.google.com/file/d/12s-uHjxXhe2JyjtKdKmdddUKiqrQTmdL/view?usp=…> submitted in regard to *.ORG*, and blog post *News Review 1) ICANN Org Policy-Making Trashes Legacy gTLD .ORG* <https://www.domainmondo.com/2019/03/news-review-1-icann-org-policy-making.h…> , applicable to .BIZ, as if fully set out herein, as well as the aforesaid DOJ Antitrust Division advice <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3zjyRMTBSc7UzViS0stOWhQR3c/view?usp=shari…> which states: *“ICANN’s approach to TLD management demonstrates that it has adopted an ineffective approach with respect to its obligation to promote competition at the registry level.”* (p.8) The *“proposed registry agreement should include provisions that would enable ICANN to constrain … registry operators from exercising market power. In particular, ICANN should establish competitive mechanisms for … renewals of gTLD registry agreements whereby prospective gTLD operators would compete for gTLDs by proposing registry terms – including maximum fee schedules – that would provide consumer benefits.*” (p. 2) (emphasis added) “ICANN’s request for bids should expressly call for bids to specify an *initial maximum price* that would be charged by the operator for *domain registrations*, as well as *limitations on price increases over time*.” (p.7) “… *ICANN *should require competitive bidding for* renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, *rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition. Such a mechanism would both assist in disciplining the conduct of the incumbent during the initial term insofar as the incumbent would want to maximize the likelihood of renewal, and ensure the benefits of competition when potential operators bid for the right to operate the gTLD in the renewal term … *Experience with the .net TLD and other gTLDs has shown* that … *periodic rebidding has served as an effective tool* for *managing the interests of registrants* in *gTLDs*. Indeed, *competitive bidding has resulted in lower domain prices* and higher operating specifications than what ICANN has achieved through non-competitive negotiations. In particular, *competitive bidding* prompts bidders to propose and accept registry improvements, higher operating standards, and *lower registration fees* to win the contract.” (pp.7-8) *3. The Registry Operator Does Not Own .BIZ—top level domains do not constitute property--see* U.S. government’s Amicus Curiae brief filed 29 Dec 2015 in Weinstein vs IRAN <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/litigation-haim-et-al-us-brief-…> (US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, USCA Case #14-7193), at page 20 of 32: “To the contrary, a foundational 1994 Internet governance policy statement, *still regarded by the Internet community as authoritative*, explicitly rejects efforts to assert property rights in such domains: “Concerns about ‘rights’ * * * are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about ‘responsibilities’ and ‘service’ to the community.” See RFC 1591 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt>, DNS Structure and Delegation 4-5 (Mar. 1994).” (emphasis and link added) Respectfully submitted, John Poole, gTLD domain name registrant, and *editor,* DomainMondo.com <https://www.domainmondo.com/2019/04/news-review-1-org-comments-2-when-to.ht…> cc: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division; Federal Trade Commission (FTC); NTIA (David Redl); European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager; European Commission Directorate-General for Competition For the attention of the Antitrust Registry; European Data Protection Supervisor Giovanni Buttarelli; ICANN Board Chair Cherine Chalaby.

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] price capping .BIZ
by RGEFFKEN May 5, 2019

May 5, 2019

I am strongly opposed to the proposed removal of price capping. Removing price capping is likely to result in many valuable resources being forced off-line or to alternate platforms (think IG etc) by unregulated price increases. I would urge you, therefore, to not remove price capping. R. Geffken

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] Comments on .biz changes
by ds May 4, 2019

May 4, 2019

**I am writing to express my deep concern with allowing the Public Interest Registry (PIR) set prices for domains without the price caps currently in place. Removing price caps on all .org, .info, and .biz top level domains will allow the PIR to set any price it wants, which will almost certainly cause prices to spike, making web domains unaffordable, and costing companies and organizations money that they would use to grow their businesses. At its most basic sense, high domain prices will hurt business, and since 80% of all employees in the US (and a higher percentage in the rest of the world) work for small businesses, raising prices will directly impact the US and world economies. Please leave the price caps in place. 10% annual growth, as governed by the caps, is still 3x the average inflation rate, so it's not like the domain wholesalers are losing money. Thank you for your consideration to this comment. Regards, DS

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] Opposal to Domain Price Increases
by Cristina gil May 3, 2019

May 3, 2019

I write to oppose the removal of price caps on any of the “legacy” TLDs as doing so will only create a free-for-all on limitless price increases across the well-established board. The new GTLDs are already accepted as alternative options with price expectations that vary greatly based on the registry; however, current registrants of older well established extensions are expected to maintain some level of stability. These legacy domain names, some of which have been registered for many years, are unlike the new mess being created and owners of these legacy names have a reasonable expectation of affordability and stability. The old manta goes ‘if it is not broken, you do not try and fix it.’ The vast majority of domain owners will remain unaffected so long as the fluctuating and exorbitant prices remain in the newer name space; there will be plenty of years ahead for ICANN to benefit from those while allowing stability within the legacy name space. Leave well enough alone and move forward without effecting millions and millions of current and well established registrants who expect their domain expenses to remain reasonable, affordable and stable. Enviado desde Correo para Windows 10 --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

[Comments-biz-renewal-03apr19] 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