Yet Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal to also cover .BIZ and .INFO Renewals
All, Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them. Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:- 1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*. 2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy. 3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness. As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating. 4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable. 5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant. *I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!* Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg Justine Chew ----- On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Dear Justine, On 01/05/2019 10:31, Justine Chew wrote:
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an _annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA_. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
Thank you, this is great. Kindest regards, Olivier
+1 CW
On 1 May 2019, at 11:44, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Justine,
On 01/05/2019 10:31, Justine Chew wrote:
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
Thank you, this is great. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
Great work as always Justine. I know you have other tasks to do but Im sure Greg and the team can finish this off for us to send away tomorrow 🤗 M On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Thank you Justine, Greg and all for a well thoughtful statement. Also for the inclusion of a clause on the UA, which I believe is important as it goes with ICANN direction of the new strategy. Nadira On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:32 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Justine for the revised draft and for the inclusion of UA into the comments which is something I have been suggesting. It looks good Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On May 1, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Justine, Greg and all for a well thoughtful statement. Also for the inclusion of a clause on the UA, which I believe is important as it goes with ICANN direction of the new strategy. Nadira
On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:32 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote: All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to Bastiaan's and Holly's request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and Olivier's request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by Maureen.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM To: Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
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
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
Justine, Thank you so much for keeping the ball rolling! I will pick it up again shortly. Greg On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:34 AM Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
Thanks Justine for the revised draft and for the inclusion of UA into the comments which is something I have been suggesting. It looks good
Best Judith
Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On May 1, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Justine, Greg and all for a well thoughtful statement. Also for the inclusion of a clause on the UA, which I believe is important as it goes with ICANN direction of the new strategy. Nadira
On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:32 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
Excellent ... Thanks to *all* the contributors *and*, of course, the drafters and primary 'pen holders' on this comment, it is not only something I can support but also an excellent example of why the CPWG exists... <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Justine,
Thank you so much for keeping the ball rolling! I will pick it up again shortly.
Greg
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:34 AM Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
Thanks Justine for the revised draft and for the inclusion of UA into the comments which is something I have been suggesting. It looks good
Best Judith
Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On May 1, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Justine, Greg and all for a well thoughtful statement. Also for the inclusion of a clause on the UA, which I believe is important as it goes with ICANN direction of the new strategy. Nadira
On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:32 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"* _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
+100 On Wed, 1 May 2019, 9:48 AM Cheryl Langdon-Orr, <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Excellent ... Thanks to *all* the contributors *and*, of course, the drafters and primary 'pen holders' on this comment, it is not only something I can support but also an excellent example of why the CPWG exists...
<https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...> Cheryl Langdon-Orr about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...>
On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 04:52, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Justine,
Thank you so much for keeping the ball rolling! I will pick it up again shortly.
Greg
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:34 AM Judith Hellerstein < judith@jhellerstein.com> wrote:
Thanks Justine for the revised draft and for the inclusion of UA into the comments which is something I have been suggesting. It looks good
Best Judith
Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On May 1, 2019, at 8:57 AM, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Justine, Greg and all for a well thoughtful statement. Also for the inclusion of a clause on the UA, which I believe is important as it goes with ICANN direction of the new strategy. Nadira
On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:32 Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"* _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Thanks Justine and Greg for putting together this document which I think is excellent. Whatever the massaging to finalize item 3 below, in the end, it honestly represents our discussions. Grateful to you both for this work. Marita On 5/1/2019 11:31 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an _annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA_. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote:
Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:
I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote:
All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto: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
PIR has just posted “An Open Letter to the .ORG Community” on its blog: https://pir.org/news-events/blog/ https://pir.org/an-open-letter-to-the-org-community/ Full text below (apologies for light color): Posted on May 1st, 2019 Dear .ORG Community: Now that the ICANN public comment period has expired on the proposed .ORG Registry Agreement renewal, we would like to respond to some concerns that have been raised about moving .ORG to the standard registry agreement. It was important for us to fully understand the opinions and insights offered to ensure we were as inclusive as possible with our response to you. It was equally important to us to preserve the integrity of the ICANN public comment process. We didn’t want our response to shape or impact any of the important and critical discussions around the proposed agreement. It is now time to respond to you – our .ORG Community. We Stand Beside You The .ORG Community always is considered in every decision we make here at Public Interest Registry. Rest assured, we will not raise prices unreasonably. In fact, we currently have no specific plans for any price increases for .ORG. We simply are moving to the standard registry agreement with all of its applicable provisions that already is in place for more than 1,200 other top-level domain extensions. Under the current .ORG Registry Agreement, Public Interest Registry has had the ability to annually raise prices 10% per year. Despite that ability, we have not raised our prices for the last three years. We also want to mention that you, our end users, are protected in the registry agreement in case of any sensible future price increases. You would receive six-months’ notice of any increase from your registrar (the company where you registered your domain) with the ability to lock in your pricing at the then current rate for the next 10 years without any price fluctuation. Also, keep in mind that .ORG is constrained by the competitive market; we cannot dramatically increase prices for .ORG, as we recognize and understand that both our .ORG end users and our .ORG registrars would turn away from .ORG. To our valued registrar partners, we stand behind you and recognize that a dramatic price increase for .ORG would adversely impact you and your ability to effectively work with .ORG registrants. Such an increase is not in your interest, and that is another reason it is not in our interests either. We appreciate the constructive and thoughtful comments we received from our registrar friends on this front. We are Mission Based, Like the .ORG Community Public Interest Registry is the non-profit registry operator behind .ORG. We are different. We are mission based and not every decision is a financial one; we are not just driven by the “bottom line.” It is important to note what Public Interest Registry does with the funds it raises through .ORG registrations. More than 50 cents of every dollar that currently comes into Public Interest Registry already goes directly to fund the Internet Society <https://www.internetsociety.org/> and its incredible work <https://www.internetsociety.org/key-issues/>. If there are any sensible future price increases, obviously no proceeds would go towards bolstering Public Interest Registry’s share price (remember, we are a nonprofit), but instead would fund projects that do good work for the Internet, such as providing a more accessible and more secure Internet around the world. Public Interest Registry has served as the Registry Operator for .ORG for more than 15 years, and .ORG is what it is today because of you. PIR is extraordinarily proud of our .ORGs and your good work, and we will never betray the trust that you have put into .ORG and us. Our stewardship of .ORG will continue in the exact same thoughtful and responsible manner as we have conducted ourselves to this point. Thank you, The PIR Team On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:04 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks Justine and Greg for putting together this document which I think is excellent. Whatever the massaging to finalize item 3 below, in the end, it honestly represents our discussions. Grateful to you both for this work.
Marita On 5/1/2019 11:31 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
*I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!*
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard *Cc:* CPWG *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
PIR's statement is not credible. A 2 word summary is "trust us". My reply is "trust, but verify". Folks change their minds, e.g. various new gTLD operators raised prices, after previously saying they wouldn't. What matters is what's in the contracts, as what is allowed to happen often does. Even ICANN itself raided the new gTLD auction proceeds piggybank, after saying they wouldn't: https://domainnamewire.com/2018/11/06/icann-will-use-36-million-of-new-tld-a... http://domainnewsafrica.com/raid-the-piggy-bank-icann-to-allocate-us36-milli... PIR/ICANN won't even commit to a "worst case" scenario, i.e. 10% is the current allowable increase (more than generous, given inflation). They won't even commit to a 50% limit, or a 100% limit. So, nothing would prevent them from raising fees by 900% (i.e. from $9.93/domain/yr to $99.30/domain name/yr). Put a number on it, rather than making that number be infinity. Nothing would stop them from selling/assigning the contract to private equity, allowing someone else to take the heat for fee increases while PIR/ISOC walks away with a large endowment. I pointed this out in my own public comment. "Trust us?" No thanks, I trust what's written down in the contracts, rather than statements made *outside* the contracts. Read section 7.10 of the draft agreement: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18ma... 7.10 Entire Agreement This Agreement (including those specifications and documents incorporated by reference to URL locations which form a part of it) constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto pertaining to the operation of the TLD and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, between the parties on that subject." PIR knows this, and that anything it says outside the contract is meaningless and unenforceable in a legal sense. PIR even says "the ICANN public comment period has expired" and " We didn’t want our response to shape or impact any of the important and critical discussions around the proposed agreement". Yet, making an At Large comment now *after* seeing that statement is going to have the effect that they say they don't want. I suggest if folks want to make a statement, they do so as individuals, with their own names attached. Or, label it as a letter "from the following members of At Large, in their own individual capacity" if you want to do a group thing (without my name on that list, of course). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
PIR has just posted “An Open Letter to the .ORG Community” on its blog: https://pir.org/news-events/blog/ https://pir.org/an-open-letter-to-the-org-community/
Full text below (apologies for light color):
Posted on May 1st, 2019
Dear .ORG Community:
Now that the ICANN public comment period has expired on the proposed .ORG Registry Agreement renewal, we would like to respond to some concerns that have been raised about moving .ORG to the standard registry agreement.
It was important for us to fully understand the opinions and insights offered to ensure we were as inclusive as possible with our response to you. It was equally important to us to preserve the integrity of the ICANN public comment process. We didn’t want our response to shape or impact any of the important and critical discussions around the proposed agreement. It is now time to respond to you – our .ORG Community.
We Stand Beside You
The .ORG Community always is considered in every decision we make here at Public Interest Registry. Rest assured, we will not raise prices unreasonably. In fact, we currently have no specific plans for any price increases for .ORG. We simply are moving to the standard registry agreement with all of its applicable provisions that already is in place for more than 1,200 other top-level domain extensions.
Under the current .ORG Registry Agreement, Public Interest Registry has had the ability to annually raise prices 10% per year. Despite that ability, we have not raised our prices for the last three years.
We also want to mention that you, our end users, are protected in the registry agreement in case of any sensible future price increases. You would receive six-months’ notice of any increase from your registrar (the company where you registered your domain) with the ability to lock in your pricing at the then current rate for the next 10 years without any price fluctuation. Also, keep in mind that .ORG is constrained by the competitive market; we cannot dramatically increase prices for .ORG, as we recognize and understand that both our .ORG end users and our .ORG registrars would turn away from .ORG.
To our valued registrar partners, we stand behind you and recognize that a dramatic price increase for .ORG would adversely impact you and your ability to effectively work with .ORG registrants. Such an increase is not in your interest, and that is another reason it is not in our interests either. We appreciate the constructive and thoughtful comments we received from our registrar friends on this front.
We are Mission Based, Like the .ORG Community
Public Interest Registry is the non-profit registry operator behind .ORG. We are different. We are mission based and not every decision is a financial one; we are not just driven by the “bottom line.”
It is important to note what Public Interest Registry does with the funds it raises through .ORG registrations. More than 50 cents of every dollar that currently comes into Public Interest Registry already goes directly to fund the Internet Society and its incredible work. If there are any sensible future price increases, obviously no proceeds would go towards bolstering Public Interest Registry’s share price (remember, we are a nonprofit), but instead would fund projects that do good work for the Internet, such as providing a more accessible and more secure Internet around the world.
Public Interest Registry has served as the Registry Operator for .ORG for more than 15 years, and .ORG is what it is today because of you. PIR is extraordinarily proud of our .ORGs and your good work, and we will never betray the trust that you have put into .ORG and us. Our stewardship of .ORG will continue in the exact same thoughtful and responsible manner as we have conducted ourselves to this point.
Thank you,
The PIR Team
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:04 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks Justine and Greg for putting together this document which I think is excellent. Whatever the massaging to finalize item 3 below, in the end, it honestly represents our discussions. Grateful to you both for this work.
Marita
On 5/1/2019 11:31 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to Bastiaan's and Holly's request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and Olivier's request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by Maureen.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM To: Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
P.S. From the blog statement by PIR: " In fact, we currently have no specific plans for any price increases for .ORG." That sounded very familiar. Go to: https://onlinedomain.com/2017/03/09/domain-name-news/donuts-no-plans-increas... "“Donuts isn’t in a position to comment on a competitor’s pricing decisions. Speaking for ourselves, however, we have no plans to increase prices for existing registrants — this is not part of our business plan. " But then later: https://onlinedomain.com/2019/04/03/domain-name-news/so-donuts-lied-and-is-n... raised them. When you say "we currently have no specific plans", that leaves a huge opening to later change your plans. Oh, and the current CEO of PIR is John Nevett, previously of Donuts. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:41 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
PIR's statement is not credible. A 2 word summary is "trust us". My reply is "trust, but verify".
Folks change their minds, e.g. various new gTLD operators raised prices, after previously saying they wouldn't. What matters is what's in the contracts, as what is allowed to happen often does.
Even ICANN itself raided the new gTLD auction proceeds piggybank, after saying they wouldn't:
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/11/06/icann-will-use-36-million-of-new-tld-a... http://domainnewsafrica.com/raid-the-piggy-bank-icann-to-allocate-us36-milli...
PIR/ICANN won't even commit to a "worst case" scenario, i.e. 10% is the current allowable increase (more than generous, given inflation). They won't even commit to a 50% limit, or a 100% limit. So, nothing would prevent them from raising fees by 900% (i.e. from $9.93/domain/yr to $99.30/domain name/yr). Put a number on it, rather than making that number be infinity.
Nothing would stop them from selling/assigning the contract to private equity, allowing someone else to take the heat for fee increases while PIR/ISOC walks away with a large endowment. I pointed this out in my own public comment.
"Trust us?" No thanks, I trust what's written down in the contracts, rather than statements made *outside* the contracts.
Read section 7.10 of the draft agreement:
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18ma...
7.10 Entire Agreement This Agreement (including those specifications and documents incorporated by reference to URL locations which form a part of it) constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto pertaining to the operation of the TLD and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, between the parties on that subject."
PIR knows this, and that anything it says outside the contract is meaningless and unenforceable in a legal sense.
PIR even says "the ICANN public comment period has expired" and " We didn’t want our response to shape or impact any of the important and critical discussions around the proposed agreement". Yet, making an At Large comment now *after* seeing that statement is going to have the effect that they say they don't want.
I suggest if folks want to make a statement, they do so as individuals, with their own names attached. Or, label it as a letter "from the following members of At Large, in their own individual capacity" if you want to do a group thing (without my name on that list, of course).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
PIR has just posted “An Open Letter to the .ORG Community” on its blog: https://pir.org/news-events/blog/ https://pir.org/an-open-letter-to-the-org-community/
Full text below (apologies for light color):
Posted on May 1st, 2019
Dear .ORG Community:
Now that the ICANN public comment period has expired on the proposed .ORG Registry Agreement renewal, we would like to respond to some concerns that have been raised about moving .ORG to the standard registry agreement.
It was important for us to fully understand the opinions and insights offered to ensure we were as inclusive as possible with our response to you. It was equally important to us to preserve the integrity of the ICANN public comment process. We didn’t want our response to shape or impact any of the important and critical discussions around the proposed agreement. It is now time to respond to you – our .ORG Community.
We Stand Beside You
The .ORG Community always is considered in every decision we make here at Public Interest Registry. Rest assured, we will not raise prices unreasonably. In fact, we currently have no specific plans for any price increases for .ORG. We simply are moving to the standard registry agreement with all of its applicable provisions that already is in place for more than 1,200 other top-level domain extensions.
Under the current .ORG Registry Agreement, Public Interest Registry has had the ability to annually raise prices 10% per year. Despite that ability, we have not raised our prices for the last three years.
We also want to mention that you, our end users, are protected in the registry agreement in case of any sensible future price increases. You would receive six-months’ notice of any increase from your registrar (the company where you registered your domain) with the ability to lock in your pricing at the then current rate for the next 10 years without any price fluctuation. Also, keep in mind that .ORG is constrained by the competitive market; we cannot dramatically increase prices for .ORG, as we recognize and understand that both our .ORG end users and our .ORG registrars would turn away from .ORG.
To our valued registrar partners, we stand behind you and recognize that a dramatic price increase for .ORG would adversely impact you and your ability to effectively work with .ORG registrants. Such an increase is not in your interest, and that is another reason it is not in our interests either. We appreciate the constructive and thoughtful comments we received from our registrar friends on this front.
We are Mission Based, Like the .ORG Community
Public Interest Registry is the non-profit registry operator behind .ORG. We are different. We are mission based and not every decision is a financial one; we are not just driven by the “bottom line.”
It is important to note what Public Interest Registry does with the funds it raises through .ORG registrations. More than 50 cents of every dollar that currently comes into Public Interest Registry already goes directly to fund the Internet Society and its incredible work. If there are any sensible future price increases, obviously no proceeds would go towards bolstering Public Interest Registry’s share price (remember, we are a nonprofit), but instead would fund projects that do good work for the Internet, such as providing a more accessible and more secure Internet around the world.
Public Interest Registry has served as the Registry Operator for .ORG for more than 15 years, and .ORG is what it is today because of you. PIR is extraordinarily proud of our .ORGs and your good work, and we will never betray the trust that you have put into .ORG and us. Our stewardship of .ORG will continue in the exact same thoughtful and responsible manner as we have conducted ourselves to this point.
Thank you,
The PIR Team
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:04 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks Justine and Greg for putting together this document which I think is excellent. Whatever the massaging to finalize item 3 below, in the end, it honestly represents our discussions. Grateful to you both for this work.
Marita
On 5/1/2019 11:31 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to Bastiaan's and Holly's request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and Olivier's request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by Maureen.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM To: Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Were that to happen, it is likely that the broader Internet community would start looking for alternatives to the DNS. Welcome to the next iteration of the Internet. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Wed, May 1, 2019, 3:53 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
P.S. From the blog statement by PIR:
" In fact, we currently have no specific plans for any price increases for .ORG."
That sounded very familiar. Go to:
https://onlinedomain.com/2017/03/09/domain-name-news/donuts-no-plans-increas...
"“Donuts isn’t in a position to comment on a competitor’s pricing decisions. Speaking for ourselves, however, we have no plans to increase prices for existing registrants — this is not part of our business plan. "
But then later:
https://onlinedomain.com/2019/04/03/domain-name-news/so-donuts-lied-and-is-n...
raised them.
When you say "we currently have no specific plans", that leaves a huge opening to later change your plans. Oh, and the current CEO of PIR is John Nevett, previously of Donuts.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:41 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
PIR's statement is not credible. A 2 word summary is "trust us". My reply is "trust, but verify".
Folks change their minds, e.g. various new gTLD operators raised prices, after previously saying they wouldn't. What matters is what's in the contracts, as what is allowed to happen often does.
Even ICANN itself raided the new gTLD auction proceeds piggybank, after saying they wouldn't:
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/11/06/icann-will-use-36-million-of-new-tld-a...
http://domainnewsafrica.com/raid-the-piggy-bank-icann-to-allocate-us36-milli...
PIR/ICANN won't even commit to a "worst case" scenario, i.e. 10% is the current allowable increase (more than generous, given inflation). They won't even commit to a 50% limit, or a 100% limit. So, nothing would prevent them from raising fees by 900% (i.e. from $9.93/domain/yr to $99.30/domain name/yr). Put a number on it, rather than making that number be infinity.
Nothing would stop them from selling/assigning the contract to private equity, allowing someone else to take the heat for fee increases while PIR/ISOC walks away with a large endowment. I pointed this out in my own public comment.
"Trust us?" No thanks, I trust what's written down in the contracts, rather than statements made *outside* the contracts.
Read section 7.10 of the draft agreement:
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18ma...
7.10 Entire Agreement This Agreement (including those specifications and documents incorporated by reference to URL locations which form a part of it) constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto pertaining to the operation of the TLD and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, between the parties on that subject."
PIR knows this, and that anything it says outside the contract is meaningless and unenforceable in a legal sense.
PIR even says "the ICANN public comment period has expired" and " We didn’t want our response to shape or impact any of the important and critical discussions around the proposed agreement". Yet, making an At Large comment now *after* seeing that statement is going to have the effect that they say they don't want.
I suggest if folks want to make a statement, they do so as individuals, with their own names attached. Or, label it as a letter "from the following members of At Large, in their own individual capacity" if you want to do a group thing (without my name on that list, of course).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:10 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
PIR has just posted “An Open Letter to the .ORG Community” on its blog: https://pir.org/news-events/blog/ https://pir.org/an-open-letter-to-the-org-community/
Full text below (apologies for light color):
Posted on May 1st, 2019
Dear .ORG Community:
Now that the ICANN public comment period has expired on the proposed
.ORG Registry Agreement renewal, we would like to respond to some concerns that have been raised about moving .ORG to the standard registry agreement.
It was important for us to fully understand the opinions and insights
offered to ensure we were as inclusive as possible with our response to you. It was equally important to us to preserve the integrity of the ICANN public comment process. We didn’t want our response to shape or impact any of the important and critical discussions around the proposed agreement. It is now time to respond to you – our .ORG Community.
We Stand Beside You
The .ORG Community always is considered in every decision we make here
at Public Interest Registry. Rest assured, we will not raise prices unreasonably. In fact, we currently have no specific plans for any price increases for .ORG. We simply are moving to the standard registry agreement with all of its applicable provisions that already is in place for more than 1,200 other top-level domain extensions.
Under the current .ORG Registry Agreement, Public Interest Registry
has had the ability to annually raise prices 10% per year. Despite that ability, we have not raised our prices for the last three years.
We also want to mention that you, our end users, are protected in the
registry agreement in case of any sensible future price increases. You would receive six-months’ notice of any increase from your registrar (the company where you registered your domain) with the ability to lock in your pricing at the then current rate for the next 10 years without any price fluctuation. Also, keep in mind that .ORG is constrained by the competitive market; we cannot dramatically increase prices for .ORG, as we recognize and understand that both our .ORG end users and our .ORG registrars would turn away from .ORG.
To our valued registrar partners, we stand behind you and recognize
that a dramatic price increase for .ORG would adversely impact you and your ability to effectively work with .ORG registrants. Such an increase is not in your interest, and that is another reason it is not in our interests either. We appreciate the constructive and thoughtful comments we received from our registrar friends on this front.
We are Mission Based, Like the .ORG Community
Public Interest Registry is the non-profit registry operator behind
.ORG. We are different. We are mission based and not every decision is a financial one; we are not just driven by the “bottom line.”
It is important to note what Public Interest Registry does with the
funds it raises through .ORG registrations. More than 50 cents of every dollar that currently comes into Public Interest Registry already goes directly to fund the Internet Society and its incredible work. If there are any sensible future price increases, obviously no proceeds would go towards bolstering Public Interest Registry’s share price (remember, we are a nonprofit), but instead would fund projects that do good work for the Internet, such as providing a more accessible and more secure Internet around the world.
Public Interest Registry has served as the Registry Operator for .ORG
for more than 15 years, and .ORG is what it is today because of you. PIR is extraordinarily proud of our .ORGs and your good work, and we will never betray the trust that you have put into .ORG and us. Our stewardship of .ORG will continue in the exact same thoughtful and responsible manner as we have conducted ourselves to this point.
Thank you,
The PIR Team
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:04 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Thanks Justine and Greg for putting together this document which I
think is excellent. Whatever the massaging to finalize item 3 below, in the end, it honestly represents our discussions. Grateful to you both for this work.
Marita
On 5/1/2019 11:31 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
All,
Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread
within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them.
Secondly, I am responding (partly) to Bastiaan's and Holly's request
for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and Olivier's request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:-
1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing
draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by Maureen.
2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a
reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy.
3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different
opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:-
(a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness.
As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating.
4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable.
5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant.
I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!
Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to
renew
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf
of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM To: Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse?
Alan
At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
A few responses to the various earlier emails.
@Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study.
@Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft.
Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,†based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful.
M
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,
In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair?
Sent from my Pixel 3XL
John Laprise, Ph.D.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like this version Greg .
In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote: All,
I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now.
I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ 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
participants (11)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
cw＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
John Laprise -
Judith Hellerstein -
Justine Chew -
Marita Moll -
Maureen Hilyard -
Nadira Alaraj -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond