April 2019 - comments-org-renewal-18mar19@icann.org

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Thoughts on Mr. Balto's antitrust analysis of the .org market
by Nat Cohen April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Mr. David Balto in his comment ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/attachments/201…) offers his perspective as a very experienced antitrust lawyer on the issue of removing price caps on legacy gTLDs, in particular .org. Mr. Balto offers a helpful framework for analyzing the antitrust concerns that are raised by the removal of price caps. While Mr. Balto has expertise in antitrust law, it is less clear that he has particular expertise or familiarity with the dynamics of the domain name system or of online branding. It is unclear on what basis Mr. Balto made the assumptions that he relies upon in his comment. He does not cite to any economic study or research. It appears he is relying only on his own personal opinion or on talking points provided to him by an undisclosed client. Mr. Balto’s conclusions rest upon the application of the law to a set of assumed circumstances. The assumptions of fact, however, appear to be incorrect such that the legal conclusions he draws are likewise incorrect. When the facts that Mr. Balto relies upon are corrected, his letter becomes a strong argument in favor of a finding that there is market failure and that price controls are needed. If the relevant market for analysis is non-profits, not-for-profits and other volunteer organizations, it appears that .org has a greater market share in that world than .com has in the commercial world. A non-scientific recent review of a sample of 88 non-profits demonstrated that .org had over a 90% share of the domain names used for those non-profits' websites. ( https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/24/how-icann-uses-the-org-registry-to-fu…) This far exceeds the 30% market share that Mr. Balto indicates that a firm has market power. In a 2008 letter to ICANN, the U.S. Department of Justice found that multiple gTLDs, not only .com, had market power ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08…) The DOJ letter stated in part, “Finally, our investigation of the .com agreement found evidence that other gTLD registry operators may possess a degree of market power. The market power inherent in other gTLDs is less than the market power in .com, but is still material...”. Ten years later, .org continues to be by far the dominant TLD for the non-profit community indicating that the .org’s market power is apparently undiminished. Indeed, the DOJ predicted that the introduction of new gTLDs would be unlikely to affect the market power of legacy gTLDs: “Further, the introduction of new gTLDs is not likely to constrain the market power by existing gTLDs..” The reason for this is in large part because organizations that have built public awareness and have become well established on a particular domain name are “locked-in” to their current choice. Andrew Allemann, in a post on DomainNameWire.com ( https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/29/the-economics-of-domain-name-prices/) highlighted that Search Engine ranking and well established email accounts are two factors that make switching from a domain very costly and disruptive. His conclusion: “These 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.” A comment by the National Council of Nonprofits highlighted some of the reasons that a non-profit cannot easily switch to another domain name: “The domain name is an important part of being found. If domain names are no longer affordable, nonprofits will be forced to use less substantial subdomain. Donors are much more likely to donate at nonprofit.org than nonprofit.wixsite.com. Nonprofits that are no longer able to afford to keep a domain also risk longstanding domains being taken over by others, causing branding confusion and the potential for domains associated with charitable works being used for less-than-charitable purposes.” ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/000918.h… ) The American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), in their comment stated: Stating that nonprofit organizations can easily switch from one domain name to another if they don’t like the pricing structure ignores the reality that established nonprofits have a longstanding Internet presence built on a .org domain name – a name and online reputation that the organization (not the registry operator) has spent decades cultivating. ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/002154.h… ) These statements and analysis strongly support a view that .org registrants that have established a presence on a .org domain name are indeed “locked in” to their choice and cannot switch to another domain name with ease. When Mr. Balto’s antitrust analysis is applied to the circumstances of the .org registry enjoying market power in the non-profit segment and that registrants with an established online presence are locked-in to their choice of domain name, the clear conclusion is that there is market failure requiring the retention of price caps for the benefit of domain name registrants.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Public Comment on Changes to org
by Cory Bloor April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am writing to oppose this change to the .org administration. The existing system is tried and true. There seems to be little reason to remove the cap on prices, given that there can be no effective competition in this market. When I start using a name, I build its value. I cannot switch without losing that value, which puts the party that controls my access to the domain at a powerful advantage in negotiations. The intermediaries between ICANN and myself are service providers in this system, not owners of the system. It's ICANN's responsibility to run this system in the public good, and they should use their negotiating power to minimize the costs of registering and renewing domains for legitimate users. I largely agree with this comment by Nat Cohen: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_eliminat… Sincerely, Cordell Bloor Calgary, Canada

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Mark Perkins April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am a .org registrant. My domain is purely information, with no income generated from it to support it. ICANN does not seem to recognize the difference between a legacy extension created with the support of the US government, that predates the existence of ICANN and that has millions of existing users and the brand new extensions that started off with a new set of rules, in particular no price controls, and no existing registrants. They have completely different characteristics, history, and ownership structure. It is not acceptable for ICANN to ignore these differences and to propose that they be treated the same. Removing price caps is not fair to .org domain owners. Many of them have websites that they have used for years. If price caps are removed, the cost to renew their domain names may become too expensive, and they could be forced to give up websites that are important to them. The Uniform Rapid Suspension policy is too new and untested to apply on domain names that may be 20 years old or more. With the URS, the domain names could be taken down in a matter of days with little notice. ICANN should be doing more to protect owners of .org domain names. Why is ICANN trying to remove price protections for .org domain owners, so many of which are non-profits, so that they can be overcharged for their domain names?

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by David Kretch April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am a .org registrant (not-for-profit). ICANN does not seem to recognize the difference between a legacy extension created with the support of the US government, that predates the existence of ICANN and that has millions of existing users and the brand new extensions that started off with a new set of rules, in particular no price controls, and no existing registrants. They have completely different characteristics, history, and ownership structure. It is not acceptable for ICANN to ignore these differences and to propose that they be treated the same. Removing price caps is not fair to .org domain owners. Many of them have websites that they have used for years. If price caps are removed, the cost to renew their domain names may become too expensive, and they could be forced to give up websites that are important to them. ICANN should be doing more to protect owners of .org domain names. Why is ICANN trying to remove price protections for .org domain owners, so many of which are non-profits, so that they can be overcharged for their domain names? David Kretch

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] NCSG Comment
by Rafik Dammak April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Hi, Please find NCSG Comment attached. Best regards, Rafik

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Rob Borhi April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am a .org registrant. I've read about a lot of bad decisions under the UDRP. The URS seems even worse. I heard the URS is very new and is being reviewed now to see if it is working properly. It is too soon to include an untested policy on .org domains where for a few hundred dollars anyone could try to shut down someone else's website. Telling the .org registry that it can charge any price it wants for renewing a domain name is a terrible idea. Why would you allow them to set a crazy high price? They could try to force the domain owners to pay a very high price each year to renew their domain name, and if the domain owner either won't or can't, then the .org registry could take away their domain name, set a high registration price on it, and then try to find someone else who is willing to pay a high price for it. This is very unfair to long time .org domain owners who may see their prices raised sky high for no reason. You let the new domain extensions charge any price they want, but that hasn't gone so well. Lots of people got burned when the new registries offered low rates for the first year, and then after people registered the domain names and some built web sites on them, some of the prices were raised through the roof. .Org has been working just fine for decades where the prices maybe go up a little bit each year. Allowing huge price increases from one year to the next could ruin .org for everybody. I think you should pay a little more attention to what is good for the owners of .org domain names. The registries are doing fine. They don't need your help as they are already making plenty of money. Robert Borhi BC, Canada Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Masao April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Hi, I am a .org registrant (not-for-profit). I enjoy making websites as a hobby, and enjoy seeing other creative small scope sites by other people online. Removing price caps is not fair to .org domain owners. Many of them have websites that they have used for years. If price caps are removed, the cost to renew their domain names may become too expensive, and they could be forced to give up websites that are important to them. The more domains that are abandoned due in part to price increases, the worse our internet space will be, with more hobby-sites going offline, and the internet becoming just a place for businesses and owned and operated by big companies who can afford domains and hosting. For a free and open web, we should not make .orgs more expensive. They've already increased in prices enough. The Uniform Rapid Suspension policy is too new and untested to apply on domain names that may be 20 years old or more. With the URS, the domain names could be taken down in a matter of days with little notice. ICANN should be doing more to protect owners of .org domain names. Why is ICANN trying to remove price protections for .org domain owners, so many of which are non-profits, so that they can be overcharged for their domain names? Please reconsider these proposals. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Tucows Comment on Legacy TLD Contracts
by Graeme Bunton April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Please see the attached comment from Tucows. Regards Graeme -- ____________________________ Graeme Bunton Director, Analytics & Policy Tucows Inc. PH: 416 535 0123 ext 1634

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Steven Zhu April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am a domain name registrant. ICANN staff should not unilaterally impose URS in legacy TLDs when that issue is precisely what is being examined by the volunteer ICANN Working Group who has been mandated to review this issue. ICANN policy making is supposed to be a ‘bottom up, multi-stakeholder model’. I believe that legacy gTLDs are fundamentally different from for-profit new gTLDs. Legacy TLDs are essentially a public trust, unlike new gTLDs which were created, bought and paid for by private interests. Registrants of legacy TLDs are entitled to price stability and predictability, and should not be subject to price increases with no maximums. Unlike new gTLDs, registrants of legacy TLDs registered their names and made their online presence on legacy TLDs on the basis that price caps would continue to exist. Unrestrained price increases on the millions of .org registrants who are not-for-profits or non-profits would be unfair to them. Unchecked price increases have the potential to result in hundreds of millions of dollars being transferred from these organizations to one non-profit, the Internet Society, with .org registrants receiving no benefit in return. ICANN should not allow one non-profit nearly unlimited access to the funds of other non-profits. ICANN appears to be entirely catering to registries by removing price caps. ICANN should stand up for the public interest and registrants! Sincerely, Steven Zhu

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed .org price increase
by Dale Vanderhoof April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Pleas keep the current system in place. It is working fine, and registrars and users are satisfied with the current system. LEAVE IT ALONE. Making the proposed changes will burden those involved and hurt the Internet by removing some freedoms. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0