Good thinking. I just think price is the least important aspect of making this a trusted space for nonprofits. Perhaps capping the aftermarket at cost will serve the same purpose as it would dissuade renewals by commercial entities there solely to resell but leave be those who have built a brand there

Jonathan Zuck
Executive Director
Innovators Network Foundation
www.Innovatorsnetwork.org

From: Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 5:18:21 PM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Brainstorming
 
I am a bit worried about proposals like denying renewal to registrations that do not pass the litmus test of virginity. Even before PIR took over .org there was no strict requirement about being no-profit. Of course, this could be enforced now for new registrations, but to deny renewal would be most unfair.
One of the points we raise constantly in connection with the price raise is that registrants are locked in, and will have huge switching costs. The same will apply for a commercial registrant who has registered a domain name with .org maybe because the name he/she wanted was already taken in .com, or maybe for a much simpler reason, that she/he trusted PIR more than Verisign considering the record of good practices. If PIR denies renewal to a person like this, it will instantly lose the reputation earned with years of good behaviour. We might have a “pure” non-commercial domain space, but one that few would trust enough to be willing to be part of it.
Cheers,
Roberto





On 24.11.2019, at 18:54, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

For sure. That said, my guess is that even a liberal interpretation of "non-profit" would be far more conservative than the status quo. We could identify the jurisdictions that actually have that distinction and  suggest that renewals won't be granted to those who are not recognized in one of those jurisdiction. That new registrations are granted only to those who are. That the secondary market is capped at cost recovery. I mean, there's only so much we can do with a tiny piece of the work of a non-profit but these things might be possible.
From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 12:43 PM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Brainstorming
 
The challenge would be to come up with an objective, and readily applied, method to determine who qualifies as "for profit" and who does not.  Sure there are lots of crystal clear cases; the challenge is sorting out the borderline ones. 

Bill Jouris 



On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Zuck
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.