Agree. I think the argument that we WANT higher prices is much stronger than trying to predict outcomes. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 9:09:33 AM To: Jonathan Zuck Cc: Bastiaan Goslings; Roberto Gaetano; CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] renewal of .org registry Hi Jonathan, Thank you, interesting:
On 29 Apr 2019, at 12:32, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I think you're quite right to ask for a rationale for removing the price caps and suggesting that any price hike might be minimal doesn't scratch that itch. One argument that has been made is that we want the contracts to be normalized. There are more obligations placed in the new gTLDs including PICs, RPMs, etc. that we want to become standard across all gTLDs.
However, the strongest, albeit counterintuitive argument for the removal of price caps is that we actually WANT higher prices. It became obvious to the CCT Review Team that the caps represent a price point with which it is difficult for new entrants to compete and that an increase in the median price of gTLDs would likely be good for competition.
Furthermore, Evan made the argument at the end of the CPWG call that from an end user perspective, gTLDs we're dramatically underpriced. His rationale was that domains should not be commodities. For non-registrant end users this has led to more confusion, phishing and fraud. For potential registrants this has led to fewer choices in the primary market because it's too easy to buy and hold huge portfolios of names and auction them to the highest bidder. Finally, for the registrant the issue is the same as the end user in that it has led to the registration of many confusingly similar strings allowing for typo squatting and other more nefarious uses.
So while it might be hard to wrap our minds around, an increase in the median price of gTLDs would very likely lead to a decrease in the average price and the cost to maintain one.
I understand your (Evan’s?) line of reasoning, have heard it before, and I do not doubt its validity. However I assume the ‘dramatically underpriced gTLDs’ here are not .org and .net, right? But gTDLs from the new rounds. Which might imply the need for a price floor. Anyway. If it does apply to .org I do not understand how we can argue for removing the price cap because it would be a good thing if the registry fee for of a domain significantly increases, like you say, while on the other hand suggesting that people should not be concerned because an expected price increase will be minimal and therefore has no impact on usage. regards Bastiaan
From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 1:57:30 AM To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] renewal of .org registry
Thanks, Roberto
(I am jumping into this quite late, have not read the renewal proposal, and have been following the discussion from a distance.)
Pragmatically speaking I share your feelings with regard to 'registries that are responsible and are not going to do things that I would qualify as “silly”, like proceed with an exceptional raise od price’, however it seems to me that would only be applicable after the fact. Same for the expected limited 'effect of the raise of the price of a .org domain name on NGOs and small non-profits’.
IMO it does not argue for nor justifies removing the price cap in the .org Registry Agreement. I have not seen anyone explain _why_ this in itself would be beneficial. Unless I missed something.
regards, Bastiaan
*** Please note that this communication is confidential, legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer:https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***
On 29 Apr 2019, at 00:13, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, here is my comment. Just to be clear, I am not submitting any “official” comment, but would like to point out a couple of elements that have been touched in this discussion. As disclosure, but you all probably know that, I am a member of the PIR Board and a member of the EURALO Board, so my point of view might well be affected by these roles I play. However, I would like to speak in my capacity of domain registrant. I do own several domain names, all of them under .org or .eu. I am not at all afraid about potential raise of price of neither, because in both cases I do believe that these names are managed by registries that are responsible and are not going to do things that I would qualify as “silly”, like proceed with an exceptional raise od price. In the case of PIR, I would like to point out that the registry had the possibility, already under the current contract, to raise prices yearly - but has done it only in a small number of cases. Every time there has been a raise the matter has been discussed thoroughly by the Board, who has analysed the pros and cons, taking into account the potential benefits, the impact on the market, the impact on the image of the company. I don’t understand what would let us assume that, just because the new contract will give this possibility, PIR would change the behaviour it had over years and proceed to unmotivated raises, moreover if of unreasonable amount. I personally believe that to consider this as a possibility is disingenuous to say the least. A second point is the effect of the raise of the price of a .org domain name on NGOs and small non-profits. Do we really think that for creating and maintaining an Internet presence the yearly fee for a domain name plays a relevant role? The other criticism I have heard is about feeding ISOC - for instance, it has been said that more money to ISOC has resulted in increase in staff. This is probably true, but what really matters is what ISOC does for the Internet community - and in particular for underserved regions or users. A large amount of money goes to finance the IETF: my question is whether folks would prefer to have less funding to the IETF and therefore obliging the standardisation body to rely on contribution by the industry to develop standards? Would that really be better than having a couple of bucks of contribution by NGOs on their domain name - which, incidentally, is a rounding error in terms of cost for the IT infrastructure - and this even assuming that PIR would raise the price in the future, which is not at all a sure thing? Another question that I would ask is whether people know about projects, financed by ISOC, like the Tusheti Project that has brought the internet in a region in Georgia that was isolated from the rest of the country because of the difficulty of connecting it? Again, this is possible because some of the money that registrants pay for a .org domain name goes to financing projects like these. Of course, to coordinate more activities requires more staff. So what? Last but not least, my personal opinion is that moving to a situation where the whole gTLD galaxy ends up in having the same contract provisions would be a good thing in a globalized market. I am much more worried about the registries that are not subject to common rules, like ccTLDs, who can for instance use practices banned by SSAC like the wildcard, rather than having a handful of “legacy” TLDs compliant with the contract that everybody else has. But, as I said, this is just my personal opinion as an Internet user and domain name registrant. Best regards, Roberto
On 26.04.2019, at 16:17, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Roberto.
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, 1:51 AM Roberto Gaetano, <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi Jacqueline, and all. I would love to be able to comply with your request. I do indeed have my own opinion, and in the coming weekend - I am now under pressure for other things - I will express it. However, as many of you know, the PIR Board has passed a motion to remove me as Board Chair in summer 2018, so I am under the impression that I am not well positioned to act as “speaker" for the PIR Board. This said, I promise to speak up, with the caveat that I will comment on the content of the agreement and the impact (from my point of view) on users and non-for-profit organization, not on anything else. Cheers, Roberto
On 26.04.2019, at 12:56, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Maureen, well said. I would love to hear from the PIR Board as to their take on this. Jacqueline
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 3:48 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I am against any price changes being allowed for legacy domains and I know that the DotAsia Board hasn't authorised any price hikes and we don't have a cap. The recent suggestions of price caps have provided focus on these so that there is a little bit of scaremongering (or "raising awareness" as George prefers to call it) going on I suspect.
.org is used by NGOs who would be sorely affected if the cost of the domain rose significantly. Interestingly Im on the PIR Advisory Committee and we haven't been notified by the PIR Board of the implications are of a price cap for .org or what their intentions are.
Maureen
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 6:17 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote: Further to our discussions this week re: renewal of .org registry with removal of price cap -- it appears that there is a well organized campaign going on out there to scare people about potential rate hikes. That probably accounts for all those opposition letters we saw posted on the site that George Kirikos was referring to.
See blog below:
https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/?utm_source=Itera... Marita
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg