Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-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 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
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> 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<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 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
Hi folks, Jonathan's statement that "ICANN is under no obligation to renew" is not supported by any citation, not supported by history, and not correct, as one can easily check by reading the draft contract itself: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18ma... "4.2 Renewal. (a) This Agreement will be renewed for successive periods of ten (10) years upon the expiration of the initial Term set forth in Section 4.1 and each successive Term, unless:..." (list circumstances not at ICANN's discretion, e.g. if Registry operator breaches and doesn't cure that breach, etc.) Which part of "will be renewed" isn't clear? Section 4.3 talks about termination, and again it's not at ICANN's discretion. Combine the above with Section 5.4, which ensures "specific performance" of the contract, and it's clear that ICANN is under an obligation to renew: "5.4 Specific Performance. Registry Operator and ICANN agree that irreparable damage could occur if any of the provisions of this Agreement was not performed in accordance with its specific terms. Accordingly, the parties agree that they each shall be entitled to seek from the arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction specific performance of the terms of this Agreement (in addition to any other remedy to which each party is entitled)." One need only look at the market cap of Verisign. It wouldn't be so high if it was reflecting just a 6 year or 10 year contract term. That presumptive renewal was a major policy blunder by ICANN, as I noted in my own public comments. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003178.ht... If ICANN wasn't under any obligation to renew, certainly it would have held competitive tenders by now, which they've never done since entering into these types of contracts. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:49 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.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
I might be wrong about this then. Thanks for the citations George. I've known there was a presumption for renewal but believed there was an out for ICANN in extreme circumstances. Perhaps we need to add language to that part of the contract while we can. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:33:37 PM To: CPWG Cc: Alan Greenberg Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal Hi folks, Jonathan's statement that "ICANN is under no obligation to renew" is not supported by any citation, not supported by history, and not correct, as one can easily check by reading the draft contract itself: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18ma... "4.2 Renewal. (a) This Agreement will be renewed for successive periods of ten (10) years upon the expiration of the initial Term set forth in Section 4.1 and each successive Term, unless:..." (list circumstances not at ICANN's discretion, e.g. if Registry operator breaches and doesn't cure that breach, etc.) Which part of "will be renewed" isn't clear? Section 4.3 talks about termination, and again it's not at ICANN's discretion. Combine the above with Section 5.4, which ensures "specific performance" of the contract, and it's clear that ICANN is under an obligation to renew: "5.4 Specific Performance. Registry Operator and ICANN agree that irreparable damage could occur if any of the provisions of this Agreement was not performed in accordance with its specific terms. Accordingly, the parties agree that they each shall be entitled to seek from the arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction specific performance of the terms of this Agreement (in addition to any other remedy to which each party is entitled)." One need only look at the market cap of Verisign. It wouldn't be so high if it was reflecting just a 6 year or 10 year contract term. That presumptive renewal was a major policy blunder by ICANN, as I noted in my own public comments. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003178.ht... If ICANN wasn't under any obligation to renew, certainly it would have held competitive tenders by now, which they've never done since entering into these types of contracts. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:49 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.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 _______________________________________________ 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
Doubtful any registry operator is going to give up their precious presumptive renewal voluntarily, without huge compensation. At some point in the future, a court might find it's anti-competitive, and fix ICANN's mistake. But, the US government hasn't shown inclination to bring such an action to date. Perhaps one day someone will step up and bring a civil action.... Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:18 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I might be wrong about this then. Thanks for the citations George. I've known there was a presumption for renewal but believed there was an out for ICANN in extreme circumstances. Perhaps we need to add language to that part of the contract while we can.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:33:37 PM To: CPWG Cc: Alan Greenberg Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
Hi folks,
Jonathan's statement that "ICANN is under no obligation to renew" is not supported by any citation, not supported by history, and not correct, as one can easily check by reading the draft contract itself:
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18ma...
"4.2 Renewal. (a) This Agreement will be renewed for successive periods of ten (10) years upon the expiration of the initial Term set forth in Section 4.1 and each successive Term, unless:..."
(list circumstances not at ICANN's discretion, e.g. if Registry operator breaches and doesn't cure that breach, etc.)
Which part of "will be renewed" isn't clear?
Section 4.3 talks about termination, and again it's not at ICANN's discretion.
Combine the above with Section 5.4, which ensures "specific performance" of the contract, and it's clear that ICANN is under an obligation to renew:
"5.4 Specific Performance. Registry Operator and ICANN agree that irreparable damage could occur if any of the provisions of this Agreement was not performed in accordance with its specific terms. Accordingly, the parties agree that they each shall be entitled to seek from the arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction specific performance of the terms of this Agreement (in addition to any other remedy to which each party is entitled)."
One need only look at the market cap of Verisign. It wouldn't be so high if it was reflecting just a 6 year or 10 year contract term. That presumptive renewal was a major policy blunder by ICANN, as I noted in my own public comments.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003178.ht...
If ICANN wasn't under any obligation to renew, certainly it would have held competitive tenders by now, which they've never done since entering into these types of contracts.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:49 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.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 _______________________________________________ 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
Could ICANN separate the renewal process from the much debated price cap clause? Is there a way of renewing the agreement with a clause to address price caps post renewal? On Thu, May 2, 2019, 2:48 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I might be wrong about this then. Thanks for the citations George. I've known there was a presumption for renewal but believed there was an out for ICANN in extreme circumstances. Perhaps we need to add language to that part of the contract while we can.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:33:37 PM *To:* CPWG *Cc:* Alan Greenberg *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
Hi folks,
Jonathan's statement that "ICANN is under no obligation to renew" is not supported by any citation, not supported by history, and not correct, as one can easily check by reading the draft contract itself:
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18ma...
"4.2 Renewal. (a) This Agreement will be renewed for successive periods of ten (10) years upon the expiration of the initial Term set forth in Section 4.1 and each successive Term, unless:..."
(list circumstances not at ICANN's discretion, e.g. if Registry operator breaches and doesn't cure that breach, etc.)
Which part of "will be renewed" isn't clear?
Section 4.3 talks about termination, and again it's not at ICANN's discretion.
Combine the above with Section 5.4, which ensures "specific performance" of the contract, and it's clear that ICANN is under an obligation to renew:
"5.4 Specific Performance. Registry Operator and ICANN agree that irreparable damage could occur if any of the provisions of this Agreement was not performed in accordance with its specific terms. Accordingly, the parties agree that they each shall be entitled to seek from the arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction specific performance of the terms of this Agreement (in addition to any other remedy to which each party is entitled)."
One need only look at the market cap of Verisign. It wouldn't be so high if it was reflecting just a 6 year or 10 year contract term. That presumptive renewal was a major policy blunder by ICANN, as I noted in my own public comments.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003178.ht...
If ICANN wasn't under any obligation to renew, certainly it would have held competitive tenders by now, which they've never done since entering into these types of contracts.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:49 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
George Kirikos -
Jonathan Zuck -
sivasubramanian muthusamy