Fwd: [CCG]IETF Trust Restructuring & Transfer of IANA Intellectual Property
Good morning: I think it would be appreciated if CPWG could receive a briefing from ICANN.org about this matter. We should be sure that we undersetand the longer-term implications for Internet users. Regards Christopher Wilkinson PS: If this is not possible for tomorrow's session, I would like to put this on the agenda for next week's CPWG meetidng. Thankyou.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Glenn Deen <gdeen@ietf-trust.org> Subject: [CCG]IETF Trust Restructuring & Transfer of IANA Intellectual Property Date: 15 July 2024 at 20:25:12 CEST To: ccg@ietf.org, trustees-restructuring@ietf.org, Glenn Deen <gdeen@ietf-trust.org>
Hello CCG Chairs,
As Chair of the IETF Trust I'm writing to you on behalf of the IETF Trust about the transfer of IANA Intellectual Property held and managed by the IETF Trust to the new not-for-profit Delaware based IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation (IPMC) that the current IETF Trust a Virginia based Common Trust entity is restructuring into.
This IETF Trust restructuring has been underway for some time now and is nearing its end. We are now undertaking the final steps, which largely involve the actual transfer of the Intellectual Property and IP rights held by the IETF Trust.
For anyone not familiar with this restructuring work, the IETF Trust's role remains the same, as does the appointment processes for the 5 IETF Trustees (3 from IETF noncom, 1 from IETF IESG and 1 from ISOC Board of Trustees). The IETF Trustees will now be Directors of the new corporation.
What has changed is all legal under the covers, with the IETF Trust legally changing from a Virginia Common Trust to a Delaware not-for-profit corporation which like the Virginia entity has been recognized by the IRS as a not-profit 501c3. If you're interested in the details , the new Legal Documents <https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/founding-documents/> [1] and the Community Consultation <https://trustee.ietf.org/about/community-consultation-on-restructuring-the-i...> [2] are all available on the IETF Trust <https://trustee.ietf.org/> website (https://trustee.ietf.org <https://trustee.ietf.org/>)
The IETF Trust provides service beyond the IETF community by holding IANA related Intellectual Property assigned to it as part of the 2016 IANA restructuring. See Exhibits A & B in the IANA Assignment Agreement <https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Assignment-Agreement-2016-09-30-...> [3] for the full asset list of IANA IP consisting of Trademarks and Domain Names. Under the agreement, the IETF Trust holds the IANA TMs, maintaining registrations and taking appropriate actions as needed to protect the TMs. The IETF Trustees also provide change approval for the transferred DNS Domains whereby approval by any 3 of the 5 Trustees is required for any technical changes to the domains.
During a review of reassignment of agreements the IETF Trust with different parties, we recently came across a requirement in the 2016 IANA agreements [3][4] around the IANA Intellectual Property held by the IETF Trust that requires that we consult and get approval from the CCG for the Transfer of the IANA IP assets.
BTW, Here is the requirement: Section 4.2 of the Community Agreement <https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016-09-30-E...> [4]
4.2 Encumbrances and Transfer. Except as contemplated by this Agreement and the License Agreements, the IETF Trust shall not sell, lease (as lessor), transfer or otherwise dispose of, or mortgage or pledge, or impose or suffer to be imposed any Encumbrance on, in whole or in part, any of the IANA Intellectual Property without the prior written approval of the CCG, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
While the transfer isn't to outside of the IETF Trust, we've tried to err on the side of compliance so we're writing to the CCG chairs.
To be fully transparent, if you check in the US TM database, you'll see that the IANA TMs were transferred as part of a batch of transfers done for the IETF TMs held by the Trust. Our sincere apologies for getting ahead of obtaining CCG approval, we had previously reviewed the IANA agreements related to re-assignment, but only on a recent re-review came across the specific need in Section 4.2 related to the CCG approval. Now that we see the requirement, we are working to correct and comply.
Current status of IANA IP: The IANA TMs transfers have been submitted to various TM regimes that they are registered in and some like the US have been processed. The DNS Domains have not yet been transferred and the Trustees of the Virginia Trust are continuing their role as technical change approvers.
To comply with our IANA agreement under section 4.2, the IETF Trust intends to send to the 3 CCG Chairs a formal transfer approval request for the IANA IP via Docusign.
Since we've never done this sort of request with the CCG we don't have any past process for IETF Trust::CCG interaction to follow, hence this note.
In terms of time, we'd like to resolve this as quickly as possible. We're very near the end of the restructuring and we'd like to complete our asset transfers.
Are there any questions that you have, or should we go ahead and send the notice over for signatures?
Referenced Links:
[1] https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/founding-documents/
[2] https://trustee.ietf.org/about/community-consultation-on-restructuring-the-i...
[3] https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Assignment-Agreement-2016-09-30-...
[4] https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016-09-30-E...
Regards
Glenn Deen,
IETF Trust Chair
_______________________________________________ CCG mailing list -- ccg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ccg-leave@ietf.org
Dear Christopher, thanks for pointing this out. We'll work to see if we can get a briefing on this. Kindest regards, Olivier On 06/08/2024 09:13, mail--- via CPWG wrote:
Good morning:
I think it would be appreciated if CPWG could receive a briefing from ICANN.org about this matter.
We should be sure that we undersetand the longer-term implications for Internet users.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: If this is not possible for tomorrow's session, I would like to put this on the agenda for next week's CPWG meetidng. Thankyou.
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Glenn Deen <gdeen@ietf-trust.org> *Subject: **[CCG]IETF Trust Restructuring & Transfer of IANA Intellectual Property* *Date: *15 July 2024 at 20:25:12 CEST *To: *ccg@ietf.org, trustees-restructuring@ietf.org, Glenn Deen <gdeen@ietf-trust.org>
Hello CCG Chairs,
As Chair of the IETF Trust I'm writing to you on behalf of the IETF Trust about the transfer of IANA Intellectual Property held and managed by the IETF Trust to the new not-for-profit Delaware based IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation (IPMC) that the current IETF Trust a Virginia based Common Trust entity is restructuring into.
This IETF Trust restructuring has been underway for some time now and is nearing its end. We are now undertaking the final steps, which largely involve the actual transfer of the Intellectual Property and IP rights held by the IETF Trust.
For anyone not familiar with this restructuring work, the IETF Trust's role remains the same, as does the appointment processes for the 5 IETF Trustees (3 from IETF noncom, 1 from IETF IESG and 1 from ISOC Board of Trustees). The IETF Trustees will now be Directors of the new corporation.
What has changed is all legal under the covers, with the IETF Trust legally changing from a Virginia Common Trust to a Delaware not-for-profit corporation which like the Virginia entity has been recognized by the IRS as a not-profit 501c3. If you're interested in the details , the new Legal Documents <https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/founding-documents/> [1] and the Community Consultation <https://trustee.ietf.org/about/community-consultation-on-restructuring-the-i...> [2] are all available on the IETF Trust <https://trustee.ietf.org/> website (https://trustee.ietf.org)
The IETF Trust provides service beyond the IETF community by holding IANA related Intellectual Property assigned to it as part of the 2016 IANA restructuring. See Exhibits A & B in the IANA Assignment Agreement <https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Assignment-Agreement-2016-09-30-...> [3] for the full asset list of IANA IP consisting of Trademarks and Domain Names. Under the agreement, the IETF Trust holds the IANA TMs, maintaining registrations and taking appropriate actions as needed to protect the TMs. The IETF Trustees also provide change approval for the transferred DNS Domains whereby approval by any 3 of the 5 Trustees is required for any technical changes to the domains.
During a review of reassignment of agreements the IETF Trust with different parties, we recently came across a requirement in the 2016 IANA agreements [3][4] around the IANA Intellectual Property held by the IETF Trust that requires that we consult and get approval from the CCG for the Transfer of the IANA IP assets.
BTW, Here is the requirement: Section 4.2 of the Community Agreement <https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016-09-30-E...> [4]
/4.2 Encumbrances and Transfer. Except as contemplated by this Agreement and the License Agreements, the IETF Trust shall not sell, lease (as lessor), transfer or otherwise dispose of, or mortgage or pledge, or impose or suffer to be imposed any Encumbrance on, in whole or in part, any of the IANA Intellectual Property without the prior written approval of the CCG, which shall not be unreasonably withheld./
/ /
While the transfer isn't to outside of the IETF Trust, we've tried to err on the side of compliance so we're writing to the CCG chairs.
To be fully transparent, if you check in the US TM database, you'll see that the IANA TMs were transferred as part of a batch of transfers done for the IETF TMs held by the Trust. Our sincere apologies for getting ahead of obtaining CCG approval, we had previously reviewed the IANA agreements related to re-assignment, but only on a recent re-review came across the specific need in Section 4.2 related to the CCG approval. Now that we see the requirement, we are working to correct and comply.
Current status of IANA IP: The IANA TMs transfers have been submitted to various TM regimes that they are registered in and some like the US have been processed. The DNS Domains have not yet been transferred and the Trustees of the Virginia Trust are continuing their role as technical change approvers.
To comply with our IANA agreement under section 4.2, the IETF Trust intends to send to the 3 CCG Chairs a formal transfer approval request for the IANA IP via Docusign.
Since we've never done this sort of request with the CCG we don't have any past process for IETF Trust::CCG interaction to follow, hence this note.
In terms of time, we'd like to resolve this as quickly as possible. We're very near the end of the restructuring and we'd like to complete our asset transfers.
Are there any questions that you have, or should we go ahead and send the notice over for signatures?
Referenced Links:
[1] https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/founding-documents/
[2] https://trustee.ietf.org/about/community-consultation-on-restructuring-the-i...
[3] https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Assignment-Agreement-2016-09-30-...
[4] https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016-09-30-E...
Regards
Glenn Deen,
IETF Trust Chair
_______________________________________________ CCG mailing list -- ccg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ccg-leave@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list --cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tocpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
As the "names community" co-chair of the CCG, I've asked for a briefing or briefings for all SO/ACs. I've also asked for a bunch of additional information. I can discuss this at Wednesday's meeting of the CPWG. Greg On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:49 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Christopher,
thanks for pointing this out. We'll work to see if we can get a briefing on this. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/08/2024 09:13, mail--- via CPWG wrote:
Good morning:
I think it would be appreciated if CPWG could receive a briefing from ICANN.org about this matter.
We should be sure that we undersetand the longer-term implications for Internet users.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: If this is not possible for tomorrow's session, I would like to put this on the agenda for next week's CPWG meetidng. Thankyou.
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Glenn Deen <gdeen@ietf-trust.org> <gdeen@ietf-trust.org> *Subject: **[CCG]IETF Trust Restructuring & Transfer of IANA Intellectual Property* *Date: *15 July 2024 at 20:25:12 CEST *To: *ccg@ietf.org, trustees-restructuring@ietf.org, Glenn Deen <gdeen@ietf-trust.org> <gdeen@ietf-trust.org>
Hello CCG Chairs,
As Chair of the IETF Trust I'm writing to you on behalf of the IETF Trust about the transfer of IANA Intellectual Property held and managed by the IETF Trust to the new not-for-profit Delaware based IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation (IPMC) that the current IETF Trust a Virginia based Common Trust entity is restructuring into.
This IETF Trust restructuring has been underway for some time now and is nearing its end. We are now undertaking the final steps, which largely involve the actual transfer of the Intellectual Property and IP rights held by the IETF Trust.
For anyone not familiar with this restructuring work, the IETF Trust's role remains the same, as does the appointment processes for the 5 IETF Trustees (3 from IETF noncom, 1 from IETF IESG and 1 from ISOC Board of Trustees). The IETF Trustees will now be Directors of the new corporation.
What has changed is all legal under the covers, with the IETF Trust legally changing from a Virginia Common Trust to a Delaware not-for-profit corporation which like the Virginia entity has been recognized by the IRS as a not-profit 501c3. If you're interested in the details , the new Legal Documents <https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/founding-documents/> [1] and the Community Consultation <https://trustee.ietf.org/about/community-consultation-on-restructuring-the-i...> [2] are all available on the IETF Trust <https://trustee.ietf.org/> website (https://trustee.ietf.org)
The IETF Trust provides service beyond the IETF community by holding IANA related Intellectual Property assigned to it as part of the 2016 IANA restructuring. See Exhibits A & B in the IANA Assignment Agreement <https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Assignment-Agreement-2016-09-30-...> [3] for the full asset list of IANA IP consisting of Trademarks and Domain Names. Under the agreement, the IETF Trust holds the IANA TMs, maintaining registrations and taking appropriate actions as needed to protect the TMs. The IETF Trustees also provide change approval for the transferred DNS Domains whereby approval by any 3 of the 5 Trustees is required for any technical changes to the domains.
During a review of reassignment of agreements the IETF Trust with different parties, we recently came across a requirement in the 2016 IANA agreements [3][4] around the IANA Intellectual Property held by the IETF Trust that requires that we consult and get approval from the CCG for the Transfer of the IANA IP assets.
BTW, Here is the requirement: Section 4.2 of the Community Agreement <https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016-09-30-E...> [4]
*4.2 Encumbrances and Transfer. Except as contemplated by this Agreement and the License Agreements, the IETF Trust shall not sell, lease (as lessor), transfer or otherwise dispose of, or mortgage or pledge, or impose or suffer to be imposed any Encumbrance on, in whole or in part, any of the IANA Intellectual Property without the prior written approval of the CCG, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.*
While the transfer isn't to outside of the IETF Trust, we've tried to err on the side of compliance so we're writing to the CCG chairs.
To be fully transparent, if you check in the US TM database, you'll see that the IANA TMs were transferred as part of a batch of transfers done for the IETF TMs held by the Trust. Our sincere apologies for getting ahead of obtaining CCG approval, we had previously reviewed the IANA agreements related to re-assignment, but only on a recent re-review came across the specific need in Section 4.2 related to the CCG approval. Now that we see the requirement, we are working to correct and comply.
Current status of IANA IP: The IANA TMs transfers have been submitted to various TM regimes that they are registered in and some like the US have been processed. The DNS Domains have not yet been transferred and the Trustees of the Virginia Trust are continuing their role as technical change approvers.
To comply with our IANA agreement under section 4.2, the IETF Trust intends to send to the 3 CCG Chairs a formal transfer approval request for the IANA IP via Docusign.
Since we've never done this sort of request with the CCG we don't have any past process for IETF Trust::CCG interaction to follow, hence this note.
In terms of time, we'd like to resolve this as quickly as possible. We're very near the end of the restructuring and we'd like to complete our asset transfers.
Are there any questions that you have, or should we go ahead and send the notice over for signatures?
Referenced Links:
[1] https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/founding-documents/
[2] https://trustee.ietf.org/about/community-consultation-on-restructuring-the-i...
[3] https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Assignment-Agreement-2016-09-30-...
[4] https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016-09-30-E...
Regards
Glenn Deen,
IETF Trust Chair
_______________________________________________ CCG mailing list -- ccg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ccg-leave@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
As the "names community" co-chair of the CCG, I've asked for a briefing or briefings for all SO/ACs. I've also asked for a bunch of additional information. I can discuss this at Wednesday's meeting of the CPWG. Greg On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:48 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Christopher,
thanks for pointing this out. We'll work to see if we can get a briefing on this. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 06/08/2024 09:13, mail--- via CPWG wrote:
Good morning:
I think it would be appreciated if CPWG could receive a briefing from ICANN.org about this matter.
We should be sure that we undersetand the longer-term implications for Internet users.
Regards
Christopher Wilkinson
PS: If this is not possible for tomorrow's session, I would like to put this on the agenda for next week's CPWG meetidng. Thankyou.
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Glenn Deen <gdeen@ietf-trust.org> <gdeen@ietf-trust.org> *Subject: **[CCG]IETF Trust Restructuring & Transfer of IANA Intellectual Property* *Date: *15 July 2024 at 20:25:12 CEST *To: *ccg@ietf.org, trustees-restructuring@ietf.org, Glenn Deen <gdeen@ietf-trust.org> <gdeen@ietf-trust.org>
Hello CCG Chairs,
As Chair of the IETF Trust I'm writing to you on behalf of the IETF Trust about the transfer of IANA Intellectual Property held and managed by the IETF Trust to the new not-for-profit Delaware based IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation (IPMC) that the current IETF Trust a Virginia based Common Trust entity is restructuring into.
This IETF Trust restructuring has been underway for some time now and is nearing its end. We are now undertaking the final steps, which largely involve the actual transfer of the Intellectual Property and IP rights held by the IETF Trust.
For anyone not familiar with this restructuring work, the IETF Trust's role remains the same, as does the appointment processes for the 5 IETF Trustees (3 from IETF noncom, 1 from IETF IESG and 1 from ISOC Board of Trustees). The IETF Trustees will now be Directors of the new corporation.
What has changed is all legal under the covers, with the IETF Trust legally changing from a Virginia Common Trust to a Delaware not-for-profit corporation which like the Virginia entity has been recognized by the IRS as a not-profit 501c3. If you're interested in the details , the new Legal Documents <https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/founding-documents/> [1] and the Community Consultation <https://trustee.ietf.org/about/community-consultation-on-restructuring-the-i...> [2] are all available on the IETF Trust <https://trustee.ietf.org/> website (https://trustee.ietf.org)
The IETF Trust provides service beyond the IETF community by holding IANA related Intellectual Property assigned to it as part of the 2016 IANA restructuring. See Exhibits A & B in the IANA Assignment Agreement <https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Assignment-Agreement-2016-09-30-...> [3] for the full asset list of IANA IP consisting of Trademarks and Domain Names. Under the agreement, the IETF Trust holds the IANA TMs, maintaining registrations and taking appropriate actions as needed to protect the TMs. The IETF Trustees also provide change approval for the transferred DNS Domains whereby approval by any 3 of the 5 Trustees is required for any technical changes to the domains.
During a review of reassignment of agreements the IETF Trust with different parties, we recently came across a requirement in the 2016 IANA agreements [3][4] around the IANA Intellectual Property held by the IETF Trust that requires that we consult and get approval from the CCG for the Transfer of the IANA IP assets.
BTW, Here is the requirement: Section 4.2 of the Community Agreement <https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016-09-30-E...> [4]
*4.2 Encumbrances and Transfer. Except as contemplated by this Agreement and the License Agreements, the IETF Trust shall not sell, lease (as lessor), transfer or otherwise dispose of, or mortgage or pledge, or impose or suffer to be imposed any Encumbrance on, in whole or in part, any of the IANA Intellectual Property without the prior written approval of the CCG, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.*
While the transfer isn't to outside of the IETF Trust, we've tried to err on the side of compliance so we're writing to the CCG chairs.
To be fully transparent, if you check in the US TM database, you'll see that the IANA TMs were transferred as part of a batch of transfers done for the IETF TMs held by the Trust. Our sincere apologies for getting ahead of obtaining CCG approval, we had previously reviewed the IANA agreements related to re-assignment, but only on a recent re-review came across the specific need in Section 4.2 related to the CCG approval. Now that we see the requirement, we are working to correct and comply.
Current status of IANA IP: The IANA TMs transfers have been submitted to various TM regimes that they are registered in and some like the US have been processed. The DNS Domains have not yet been transferred and the Trustees of the Virginia Trust are continuing their role as technical change approvers.
To comply with our IANA agreement under section 4.2, the IETF Trust intends to send to the 3 CCG Chairs a formal transfer approval request for the IANA IP via Docusign.
Since we've never done this sort of request with the CCG we don't have any past process for IETF Trust::CCG interaction to follow, hence this note.
In terms of time, we'd like to resolve this as quickly as possible. We're very near the end of the restructuring and we'd like to complete our asset transfers.
Are there any questions that you have, or should we go ahead and send the notice over for signatures?
Referenced Links:
[1] https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/founding-documents/
[2] https://trustee.ietf.org/about/community-consultation-on-restructuring-the-i...
[3] https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Assignment-Agreement-2016-09-30-...
[4] https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Community-Agreement-2016-09-30-E...
Regards
Glenn Deen,
IETF Trust Chair
_______________________________________________ CCG mailing list -- ccg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ccg-leave@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- *Greg Shatan* *Chair, NARALO*
Hello All, While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other-publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies. Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA. Attached is a draft letter, which I will submit to NTIA shortly. If there are any parties interested in being co-signatories, please contact me off the list. Best regards, Michael
Dear Mike Though I agree this is quite important move to guarantee transparency and accountability, I believe that person names do not add much value to this letter. Special from ones from outside US when addressing to the NTIA. My suggestion would be ALAC, GAC, Registrar, BC ..to sign in the name of their members who represent some of the multi-stakeholders in the ICANN model. Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados São Paulo, Brazil vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464 From: mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2024 at 14:22 To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement Hello All, While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other-publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies. Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA. Attached is a draft letter, which I will submit to NTIA shortly. If there are any parties interested in being co-signatories, please contact me off the list. Best regards, Michael
Vanda, Wise guidance as always. In fact, that thought crossed my mind shortly after I hit submit on that email. More specifically, I was thinking how certain DC lobbyists and "advisors" would seek to obfuscate my underlying message if there were a number of foreign signatories on my letter. So here is my current best thinking, and I welcome any advice or feedback that you might be able to provide. I think it is best to have US individuals or businesses co-sign the letter to NTIA. However, I intend to cc Tripti in her capacity as the ICANN Board Chair and Nico in his capacity as GAC Chair on that correspondence. When you step back and look at the BIG picture, it becomes clear that this is NOT just a USG issue but a broader Internet community issue. I know I may sound like a broken record to some, but I believe the OECD whitepaper on DNS Security, CIRCIA, NIS 2.0, and the recent NTIA community with Verisign reinforce the need for a comprehensive analysis of the entire DNS supply chain ecosystem. Please see the additional points that I raised in response to Pat Kane's CircleID piece here, https://circleid.com/posts/20240813-setting-the-record-straight-myths-vs-fac...) I have not been on any planning group calls for ICANN81, but I would like to propose this as a proposed ALAC Plenary session. Perhaps we might even be able to involve the GAC in this planning so that this session does not overlap with any of their more important deliberations. Thoughts? Consideration? Feedback? Best regards, Michael From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 9:16 AM To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement Dear Mike Though I agree this is quite important move to guarantee transparency and accountability, I believe that person names do not add much value to this letter. Special from ones from outside US when addressing to the NTIA. My suggestion would be ALAC, GAC, Registrar, BC ..to sign in the name of their members who represent some of the multi-stakeholders in the ICANN model. Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados São Paulo, Brazil vanda@scartezini.org<mailto:vanda@scartezini.org> Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464 From: mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2024 at 14:22 To: cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement Hello All, While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone's attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other-publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies. Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA. Attached is a draft letter, which I will submit to NTIA shortly. If there are any parties interested in being co-signatories, please contact me off the list. Best regards, Michael
On 13/08/2024 18:21, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:
Hello All,
While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other- publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign <https://www.ntia.gov/other- publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign>
The .US/.COM comparison misses a greater point, Michael, The .COM is the de facto US "country code" TLD in terms of registration volume and it isn't fair to compare the .US with .COM in the US market in the same way that .COM is compared with ccTLDS outside the US in their local markets. What has been happening since the mid-2000s in many countries with a strong ccTLD is a shift away from .COM as the first choice TLD for registrants. This currently has little to do with Verisign. It can be summed up in a simple phrase: more business is local. The most common registration pair for registrants is still .COM/.cCTLD. Brand protection registrations are a large part of .COM registrations. Once people start selling and trading locally on the Web, they are more likely to use a ccTLD (if it is dominant). This is why many European ccTLDs have a greater share of their local markets than the gTLDs. One of the spreadsheets in the monthly HosterStats Registrars and Resellers report shows the gTLD breakdowns by country of hoster and it would not be difficult to compare with ccTLD counts where available. In terms of registration volume, the .COM is not the only TLD seeing reduced or negative net registrations. In terms of renewals, some countries are quite good but the first year renewal rate for .COM is quite different to that of .ORG (which has some of the characteristics of a ccTLD). For the .COM gTLD as a whole, it is running around 50%. The problem is that the .COM isn't simply a single global market. It is a set of country-level markets with a smaller global market. In that respect, the demand and renewal rates are closely linked to those individual markets. This is why it is not unusual to see some registrars and resellers with over 70% first renewals and others with less than 50%.
As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies. Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA.
I remember that wonderful ICANN economic report on the new gTLDs. It had many economic insights and explanations. It was academically impressive. I tend to be somewhat cynical about such reports because the domain name market is a fast moving one and it will have changed between the time that such a report is commissioned and by the time it is delivered. The other important point on such reports is that the domain name market largely operates on a yearly basis. This means that The bulk of activity in today's activity (renewals and deletions) is larger than the number of new registrations and therefore relates more to last year's and previous year's registration decisions. The business that registered a domain name last year, or before that, may have disappeared long before the domain name comes up for renewal. (There's a particular category in web usage surveys that can track it (the rate of abandonment) as development and updates on a website that had been previously updated frequently cease.) An economic report on the entire DNS market would be a major undertaking and would be interesting. I've spent the last few weeks working on breaking down the website hosting of all gTLD websites by webhoster and have currently identified 93% of the gTLD webhosters (Approximately 21% of the gTLD DNS market is off-registrar resellers.) The web hosting side of the business is part of the DNS business but they can have some different players that will not show up in a purely DNS-based (domain names/registrars/resellers) approach. Some businesses exist purely in the Cloud in that their web hosting is in the cloud and their DNS is handled in the Cloud. They don't exist as a distinct business in terms of DNS with theor own nameservers or as a registrar. This kind of complexity is not unusual and may complicate matters for an economic report. However, limiting it to domain name registrations, registrars and resellers is more doable (the raw data for registration transactions and registrars is in the monthly ICANN registry reports). Even with the data, it is not a simple market to analyse and for people outside the domain name business, it would be extremely difficult to understand. One of the attractive aspects of .COM is its global credibility as *the* global TLD. Price stability was a part of that because registration costs in developing markets are important.The importance of the gTLD in the US market probably outweighs that in terms of registration volume. That graph in the letter makes sense in monetary terms but the TLDs being compared have very different characteristics in terms of usage and market. The data used is over five years old and has missed some of the recent market trends (The Covid Bubble). It might be a bit of an outlier but the .IE ccTLD registration cost is around $25. In terms of the Irish hosting market, the .IE has approximately twice the footprint of .COM. Some ccTLD registration costs are cheaper than .COM but the difference in registration volumes in those markets are not purely based on domain name prices. Outside the US and the developing markets, the .COM has shifting from being a first choice TLD for most registants. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
Thanks for this John. Always learn a thing or two from your work. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 13:35, John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
On 13/08/2024 18:21, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:
Hello All,
While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other- publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign <https://www.ntia.gov/other- publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign>
The .US/.COM comparison misses a greater point, Michael, The .COM is the de facto US "country code" TLD in terms of registration volume and it isn't fair to compare the .US with .COM in the US market in the same way that .COM is compared with ccTLDS outside the US in their local markets.
What has been happening since the mid-2000s in many countries with a strong ccTLD is a shift away from .COM as the first choice TLD for registrants. This currently has little to do with Verisign. It can be summed up in a simple phrase: more business is local. The most common registration pair for registrants is still .COM/.cCTLD. Brand protection registrations are a large part of .COM registrations.
Once people start selling and trading locally on the Web, they are more likely to use a ccTLD (if it is dominant). This is why many European ccTLDs have a greater share of their local markets than the gTLDs. One of the spreadsheets in the monthly HosterStats Registrars and Resellers report shows the gTLD breakdowns by country of hoster and it would not be difficult to compare with ccTLD counts where available.
In terms of registration volume, the .COM is not the only TLD seeing reduced or negative net registrations. In terms of renewals, some countries are quite good but the first year renewal rate for .COM is quite different to that of .ORG (which has some of the characteristics of a ccTLD). For the .COM gTLD as a whole, it is running around 50%. The problem is that the .COM isn't simply a single global market. It is a set of country-level markets with a smaller global market. In that respect, the demand and renewal rates are closely linked to those individual markets. This is why it is not unusual to see some registrars and resellers with over 70% first renewals and others with less than 50%.
As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies. Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA.
I remember that wonderful ICANN economic report on the new gTLDs. It had many economic insights and explanations. It was academically impressive. I tend to be somewhat cynical about such reports because the domain name market is a fast moving one and it will have changed between the time that such a report is commissioned and by the time it is delivered.
The other important point on such reports is that the domain name market largely operates on a yearly basis. This means that The bulk of activity in today's activity (renewals and deletions) is larger than the number of new registrations and therefore relates more to last year's and previous year's registration decisions. The business that registered a domain name last year, or before that, may have disappeared long before the domain name comes up for renewal. (There's a particular category in web usage surveys that can track it (the rate of abandonment) as development and updates on a website that had been previously updated frequently cease.)
An economic report on the entire DNS market would be a major undertaking and would be interesting. I've spent the last few weeks working on breaking down the website hosting of all gTLD websites by webhoster and have currently identified 93% of the gTLD webhosters (Approximately 21% of the gTLD DNS market is off-registrar resellers.) The web hosting side of the business is part of the DNS business but they can have some different players that will not show up in a purely DNS-based (domain names/registrars/resellers) approach. Some businesses exist purely in the Cloud in that their web hosting is in the cloud and their DNS is handled in the Cloud. They don't exist as a distinct business in terms of DNS with theor own nameservers or as a registrar. This kind of complexity is not unusual and may complicate matters for an economic report. However, limiting it to domain name registrations, registrars and resellers is more doable (the raw data for registration transactions and registrars is in the monthly ICANN registry reports). Even with the data, it is not a simple market to analyse and for people outside the domain name business, it would be extremely difficult to understand.
One of the attractive aspects of .COM is its global credibility as *the* global TLD. Price stability was a part of that because registration costs in developing markets are important.The importance of the gTLD in the US market probably outweighs that in terms of registration volume.
That graph in the letter makes sense in monetary terms but the TLDs being compared have very different characteristics in terms of usage and market. The data used is over five years old and has missed some of the recent market trends (The Covid Bubble).
It might be a bit of an outlier but the .IE ccTLD registration cost is around $25. In terms of the Irish hosting market, the .IE has approximately twice the footprint of .COM. Some ccTLD registration costs are cheaper than .COM but the difference in registration volumes in those markets are not purely based on domain name prices. Outside the US and the developing markets, the .COM has shifting from being a first choice TLD for most registants.
Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
John The .ie wholesale cost is NOT $25. The wholesale pricing for .ie domains is around €14 / year. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 19:35 To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com>, cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. On 13/08/2024 18:21, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:
Hello All,
While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other- publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign <https://www.ntia.gov/other- publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign>
The .US/.COM comparison misses a greater point, Michael, The .COM is the de facto US "country code" TLD in terms of registration volume and it isn't fair to compare the .US with .COM in the US market in the same way that .COM is compared with ccTLDS outside the US in their local markets. What has been happening since the mid-2000s in many countries with a strong ccTLD is a shift away from .COM as the first choice TLD for registrants. This currently has little to do with Verisign. It can be summed up in a simple phrase: more business is local. The most common registration pair for registrants is still .COM/.cCTLD. Brand protection registrations are a large part of .COM registrations. Once people start selling and trading locally on the Web, they are more likely to use a ccTLD (if it is dominant). This is why many European ccTLDs have a greater share of their local markets than the gTLDs. One of the spreadsheets in the monthly HosterStats Registrars and Resellers report shows the gTLD breakdowns by country of hoster and it would not be difficult to compare with ccTLD counts where available. In terms of registration volume, the .COM is not the only TLD seeing reduced or negative net registrations. In terms of renewals, some countries are quite good but the first year renewal rate for .COM is quite different to that of .ORG (which has some of the characteristics of a ccTLD). For the .COM gTLD as a whole, it is running around 50%. The problem is that the .COM isn't simply a single global market. It is a set of country-level markets with a smaller global market. In that respect, the demand and renewal rates are closely linked to those individual markets. This is why it is not unusual to see some registrars and resellers with over 70% first renewals and others with less than 50%.
As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies. Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA.
I remember that wonderful ICANN economic report on the new gTLDs. It had many economic insights and explanations. It was academically impressive. I tend to be somewhat cynical about such reports because the domain name market is a fast moving one and it will have changed between the time that such a report is commissioned and by the time it is delivered. The other important point on such reports is that the domain name market largely operates on a yearly basis. This means that The bulk of activity in today's activity (renewals and deletions) is larger than the number of new registrations and therefore relates more to last year's and previous year's registration decisions. The business that registered a domain name last year, or before that, may have disappeared long before the domain name comes up for renewal. (There's a particular category in web usage surveys that can track it (the rate of abandonment) as development and updates on a website that had been previously updated frequently cease.) An economic report on the entire DNS market would be a major undertaking and would be interesting. I've spent the last few weeks working on breaking down the website hosting of all gTLD websites by webhoster and have currently identified 93% of the gTLD webhosters (Approximately 21% of the gTLD DNS market is off-registrar resellers.) The web hosting side of the business is part of the DNS business but they can have some different players that will not show up in a purely DNS-based (domain names/registrars/resellers) approach. Some businesses exist purely in the Cloud in that their web hosting is in the cloud and their DNS is handled in the Cloud. They don't exist as a distinct business in terms of DNS with theor own nameservers or as a registrar. This kind of complexity is not unusual and may complicate matters for an economic report. However, limiting it to domain name registrations, registrars and resellers is more doable (the raw data for registration transactions and registrars is in the monthly ICANN registry reports). Even with the data, it is not a simple market to analyse and for people outside the domain name business, it would be extremely difficult to understand. One of the attractive aspects of .COM is its global credibility as *the* global TLD. Price stability was a part of that because registration costs in developing markets are important.The importance of the gTLD in the US market probably outweighs that in terms of registration volume. That graph in the letter makes sense in monetary terms but the TLDs being compared have very different characteristics in terms of usage and market. The data used is over five years old and has missed some of the recent market trends (The Covid Bubble). It might be a bit of an outlier but the .IE ccTLD registration cost is around $25. In terms of the Irish hosting market, the .IE has approximately twice the footprint of .COM. Some ccTLD registration costs are cheaper than .COM but the difference in registration volumes in those markets are not purely based on domain name prices. Outside the US and the developing markets, the .COM has shifting from being a first choice TLD for most registants. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hey Michele, I never knew you were on this mailing list. I know CENTR has some excellent resources regarding European ccTLD pricing. Would you be interested in sharing some of your experience regarding ccTLD pricing increases? I know some ccTLD Managers have recently raised prices in connection with pending NIS2 changes and recent inflationary pressure. However, historically, their price increases have not been as frequent as those of most gTLD registries. As I noted in my response to Pat Kane’s CircleID article, fact-based decision making is our best friend. I welcome any future contributions that you might be able to contribute to this discussion. Best regards, Michael From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 6:36 AM To: jmcc@hosterstats.com; cpwg@icann.org Subject: [CPWG] Re: Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement John The .ie wholesale cost is NOT $25. The wholesale pricing for .ie domains is around €14 / year. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: John McCormac via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 19:35 To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com<mailto:mike@palage.com>>, cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. On 13/08/2024 18:21, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:
Hello All,
While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other- publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign <https://www.ntia.gov/other- <https://www.ntia.gov/other-%0b>> publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign>
The .US/.COM comparison misses a greater point, Michael, The .COM is the de facto US "country code" TLD in terms of registration volume and it isn't fair to compare the .US with .COM in the US market in the same way that .COM is compared with ccTLDS outside the US in their local markets. What has been happening since the mid-2000s in many countries with a strong ccTLD is a shift away from .COM as the first choice TLD for registrants. This currently has little to do with Verisign. It can be summed up in a simple phrase: more business is local. The most common registration pair for registrants is still .COM/.cCTLD. Brand protection registrations are a large part of .COM registrations. Once people start selling and trading locally on the Web, they are more likely to use a ccTLD (if it is dominant). This is why many European ccTLDs have a greater share of their local markets than the gTLDs. One of the spreadsheets in the monthly HosterStats Registrars and Resellers report shows the gTLD breakdowns by country of hoster and it would not be difficult to compare with ccTLD counts where available. In terms of registration volume, the .COM is not the only TLD seeing reduced or negative net registrations. In terms of renewals, some countries are quite good but the first year renewal rate for .COM is quite different to that of .ORG (which has some of the characteristics of a ccTLD). For the .COM gTLD as a whole, it is running around 50%. The problem is that the .COM isn't simply a single global market. It is a set of country-level markets with a smaller global market. In that respect, the demand and renewal rates are closely linked to those individual markets. This is why it is not unusual to see some registrars and resellers with over 70% first renewals and others with less than 50%.
As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies. Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA.
I remember that wonderful ICANN economic report on the new gTLDs. It had many economic insights and explanations. It was academically impressive. I tend to be somewhat cynical about such reports because the domain name market is a fast moving one and it will have changed between the time that such a report is commissioned and by the time it is delivered. The other important point on such reports is that the domain name market largely operates on a yearly basis. This means that The bulk of activity in today's activity (renewals and deletions) is larger than the number of new registrations and therefore relates more to last year's and previous year's registration decisions. The business that registered a domain name last year, or before that, may have disappeared long before the domain name comes up for renewal. (There's a particular category in web usage surveys that can track it (the rate of abandonment) as development and updates on a website that had been previously updated frequently cease.) An economic report on the entire DNS market would be a major undertaking and would be interesting. I've spent the last few weeks working on breaking down the website hosting of all gTLD websites by webhoster and have currently identified 93% of the gTLD webhosters (Approximately 21% of the gTLD DNS market is off-registrar resellers.) The web hosting side of the business is part of the DNS business but they can have some different players that will not show up in a purely DNS-based (domain names/registrars/resellers) approach. Some businesses exist purely in the Cloud in that their web hosting is in the cloud and their DNS is handled in the Cloud. They don't exist as a distinct business in terms of DNS with theor own nameservers or as a registrar. This kind of complexity is not unusual and may complicate matters for an economic report. However, limiting it to domain name registrations, registrars and resellers is more doable (the raw data for registration transactions and registrars is in the monthly ICANN registry reports). Even with the data, it is not a simple market to analyse and for people outside the domain name business, it would be extremely difficult to understand. One of the attractive aspects of .COM is its global credibility as *the* global TLD. Price stability was a part of that because registration costs in developing markets are important.The importance of the gTLD in the US market probably outweighs that in terms of registration volume. That graph in the letter makes sense in monetary terms but the TLDs being compared have very different characteristics in terms of usage and market. The data used is over five years old and has missed some of the recent market trends (The Covid Bubble). It might be a bit of an outlier but the .IE ccTLD registration cost is around $25. In terms of the Irish hosting market, the .IE has approximately twice the footprint of .COM. Some ccTLD registration costs are cheaper than .COM but the difference in registration volumes in those markets are not purely based on domain name prices. Outside the US and the developing markets, the .COM has shifting from being a first choice TLD for most registants. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com<mailto:jmcc@hosterstats.com> MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 15/08/2024 11:35, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
John
The .ie wholesale cost is NOT $25.
The wholesale pricing for .ie domains is around €14 / year.
Regards
Michele
Yep Michele, I should have made it clearer that I was talking about approximate retail prices for .IE. The .IE and most strong ccTLDs share one characteristic with .COM and the US market. When people mention a website name without the extension, there's an automatic assumption that the a site targeting the Irish market will be a .IE website. The .COM has such a market position in the US that there is an assumption that a website targeting the US market, outside some niches, will be a .COM website. When a TLD achieves that level of market dominance, the string becomes almost psychologically invisible to end users. They identify with it as being *their* TLD. The .UK has a lower retail price but massively dominates the UK market. Some of the other European ccTLDs also have low pricing but dominate their markets. The .EU was intended to be a sort of replacement for the .COM for EU citizens but leaving aside its history, it shares that kind of multiple markets characteristic with the .COM in that it has a smaller EU-wide market and a lot of EU member state markets. Despite a lot of marketing, it is not a first choice TLD in the EU. It was up aginst a very strong .COM market in the EU and ccTLDs of varying market shares. A strong ccTLD has a very large and focused market at its core. Pricing, wholesale and retail, is only part of the equation in how registrants choose a TLD. This part of Pat Kane's blog post, in respect of what has been happening on the cost side of things for everyone, is problematic: "Customers of .com domain names are more likely to be affected by two factors outside of Verisign’s control: 1) the rising cost of retail registrations that are outpacing wholesale prices, with some registrars now charging more than double the wholesale price to renew a .com domain name; and 2) the unregulated secondary market, which accumulates large inventories of domain names and charges markups that are—in some cases—thousands of times higher than the regulated wholesale price." He's right about the first factor but potentially misses the reasons for this. The costs in recent years have increased (inflation, rising energy costs etc) and these have impacted registrars and resellers. The second factor is not actually a problem for .COM but rather a vote of confidence from registrants. There are more .COM domain names that have been deleted and not reregistered than active .COM domain names. A healthy secondary market is a good sign for a TLD and indicates both demand and competition. Most of the ICANN accredited registrars are drop catcher registrars rather than retail or brand protection registrars. Some of the domain names on sale will keep renewing for years before being sold or dropped. Ironically, Verisign and ICANN are beneficiaries of a strong gTLD secondary market. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
John With respect to IE domains – the retail price charged by most of the large .ie registrars is significantly below cost for 1st year registrations and transfers. I agree with most of the rest of your comments. The costs for registrars and resellers have gone up significantly over the last few years and as the market matures more companies have realised that they the “loss leader” strategy is more “loss” than “leader”. I don’t enjoy charging what we charge for some of the services, but we have to pay staff etc Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: John McCormac <jmcc@hosterstats.com> Date: Thursday, 15 August 2024 at 14:55 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Re: Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. On 15/08/2024 11:35, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
John
The .ie wholesale cost is NOT $25.
The wholesale pricing for .ie domains is around €14 / year.
Regards
Michele
Yep Michele, I should have made it clearer that I was talking about approximate retail prices for .IE. The .IE and most strong ccTLDs share one characteristic with .COM and the US market. When people mention a website name without the extension, there's an automatic assumption that the a site targeting the Irish market will be a .IE website. The .COM has such a market position in the US that there is an assumption that a website targeting the US market, outside some niches, will be a .COM website. When a TLD achieves that level of market dominance, the string becomes almost psychologically invisible to end users. They identify with it as being *their* TLD. The .UK has a lower retail price but massively dominates the UK market. Some of the other European ccTLDs also have low pricing but dominate their markets. The .EU was intended to be a sort of replacement for the .COM for EU citizens but leaving aside its history, it shares that kind of multiple markets characteristic with the .COM in that it has a smaller EU-wide market and a lot of EU member state markets. Despite a lot of marketing, it is not a first choice TLD in the EU. It was up aginst a very strong .COM market in the EU and ccTLDs of varying market shares. A strong ccTLD has a very large and focused market at its core. Pricing, wholesale and retail, is only part of the equation in how registrants choose a TLD. This part of Pat Kane's blog post, in respect of what has been happening on the cost side of things for everyone, is problematic: "Customers of .com domain names are more likely to be affected by two factors outside of Verisign’s control: 1) the rising cost of retail registrations that are outpacing wholesale prices, with some registrars now charging more than double the wholesale price to renew a .com domain name; and 2) the unregulated secondary market, which accumulates large inventories of domain names and charges markups that are—in some cases—thousands of times higher than the regulated wholesale price." He's right about the first factor but potentially misses the reasons for this. The costs in recent years have increased (inflation, rising energy costs etc) and these have impacted registrars and resellers. The second factor is not actually a problem for .COM but rather a vote of confidence from registrants. There are more .COM domain names that have been deleted and not reregistered than active .COM domain names. A healthy secondary market is a good sign for a TLD and indicates both demand and competition. Most of the ICANN accredited registrars are drop catcher registrars rather than retail or brand protection registrars. Some of the domain names on sale will keep renewing for years before being sold or dropped. Ironically, Verisign and ICANN are beneficiaries of a strong gTLD secondary market. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com>
participants (9)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Greg Shatan -
Greg Shatan [NARALO] -
John McCormac -
mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
mike palage.com -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Vanda Scartezini