Thanks Ayden, I think there is one part of this which is worth
emphasizing, namely that while $300 may not be a lot of money to some
organizations, if you are, say, a community group based in Indonesia,
then there are legitimate affordability issues that would follow an
increase.

I don't think it's unfair to point out that domainers have a greater
personal interest in these kinds of changes than most... but I also
don't think you can dismiss the broader concerns outright.

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 3:07 PM Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Forwarding on behalf of Kathy, as her emails are not going through
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 8:01 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
> I am very happy that Internet Governance Project, without notice or budgeting, would have the money to pay for a 10 year renewal of the .ORG domain name. Even if we heard about such a rise in price (and I've noted in my last email that see nothing requiring anyone to notify us), this is real money:
>
> Estimates
>
> $20 a year for registration times 10 years = $200
>
> $10 a year for proxy registration (as .ORG registrants seek proxy and privacy registrants due to the controversial nature of their work with politics, religion, family planning, education of girls and LGBTQ issues)  times 10 years =$100 (or more)
>
> Total $300.
>
> For my groups and for many groups I work with countries in regions around the world, this is real money.  It might take additional fundraising, time to prepare and time to budget.  It might preempt other projects, priorities and deadlines. It might not be doable in a short period of time.
>
> Many groups live on shoestring budgets. Again, Milton, I'm glad you don't :-).
>
> Best regards, Kathy
>
>
> On 4/30/2019 11:01 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> I am really pressed for time right now but want to weigh in on one other issue.
>
> Internet Governance Project is a .org registrant and a nonprofit with a small budget.
>
> Let’s keep things in perspective. Our domain registration costs about $20 a year.
>
> Our hosting costs $500 a year. Our salaries and travel expenses cost tens of thousands a year.
>
> We probably spend more on pens and paper every year than we spend on domain names.
>
> If our wholesale price for a domain quadrupled, it would hardly be noticeable impingement on our budget.
>
>
>
> I am not asking PIR to raise its prices by that much, I am simply making the point that there is something fishy about organizations the size of AARP – which has been sending me hundreds of dollars worth of junk mail every year since I was 55 – worrying about rising cost of its domain name, which might add to its hundred million budget by $20 a year.
>
>
>
> Hey folks, you want to do something REAL for domain name registrants, both noncommercial and commercial? Let’s get ICANN contracts to allow us to register names in perpetuity. That would much solve this whole issue, wouldn’t it? Anyone with a long-term equity in a domain would be able to secure it.
>
>
>
> Do you know why we can’t do that? Because of WIPO (the trademark interests). They want to limit end user property rights on domain so that they can be more easily regulated and taken away. That was one of the first decisions ICANN made back in 1998 (Kathy knows this well).
>
>
>
> The issue for me is not so much the caps, but the way in which pricing and regulation of the domain name industry can be so easily politicized. And I believe that 9 times out of 10, politically-driven intervention in competitive industries is counterproductive. We are being manipulated here. Let’s keep our eyes on the real prize, which is end user rights in domain names,
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>
> School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 7:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
>
>
>
> Hi Amr,
>
>
>
> I understand your point, and it is possible that some of these comments were filled as part of an astroturfing campaign. However I think it is unfair to give the Internet Commerce Association all the credit here. Firstly, most of the commenters are not their members (though some are). Secondly, it is evident if you read through the comments submitted that many of the comments are coming from existing .org registrants, many of which represent legitimate non-profits who worry they will not be able to afford their domain name moving forward. I think this is a legitimate concern in the absence of any firm assurances that they will be protected moving forward. And I think it is clear why they are focusing on the removal of price caps and not rights protection mechanisms - that's less obvious an issue to those who are not following ICANN closely. I also note that only around 200 comments were received on the amendments to the .info registry agreement, versus 3,200 on .org - if domainers were behind this movement, why wouldn't they show out in strength on .info too?
>
>
>
> Ultimately, I think the NCSG should be defending the interests of non-commercial registrants and we should take a conservative approach when doing so. As Alan Greenberg noted in his comment, "PIR has regularly raised prices in the past. Although they have not raised prices recently, they now have a new CEO and a new Chair of the Board. Given that, past behaviour is NOT necessarily a predictor of future actions. ICANN should take the prudent and public-interest path and preserve caps on allowed price increases." I agree.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Ayden
>
>
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 1:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Right on, Milton. I’m equally unimpressed.
>
>
>
> First, there are indications that the domainer community has been actively mobilizing to fight this, including the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) - which is basically a trade federation for domainers. For the reasons Milton explained before, they stand to lose from a removal of the price cap more than anybody else, but that is for purely commercial reasons that have nothing to do with the interests of NGOs and NFP orgs. If anything, making life more difficult for domainers should be good for Civil Society organizations who are attempting to register new domain names (not renewing already registered ones), only to find that a domainer has registered the name in the past, and is essentially not using it at all, but is instead holding it hostage hoping that somebody will someday be willing to pay a hefty ransom. I also suspect that we’ll get a repeat of this when the time comes to deal with a similar issue on .com registration and renewals down the road.
>
>
>
> Isn’t it surprising to anybody at all that commenters are more-or-less all saying the same thing? Like they all got the same briefing, and are objecting to removal of price caps without even understanding the nuances involved at all? I haven’t gone through a fraction of the comments, but I don’t see as much pushback against RPMs being included in PIR’s new Registry Agreement.
>
>
>
> If that hasn’t raised an eyebrow, isn’t anybody surprised by the sheer number of comments submitted? Since when do ICANN issues open for public comment attract so much attention? I wasn’t aware that all these NFPs followed ICANN so closely, or pay attention to changes in its agreements with its Contracted Parties. Well…, they don’t really, and I believe they’ve submitted comments without fully understanding the issue.
>
>
>
> Sure…, there’s no evidence that any of the commenters have been…, ahem…, encouraged to submit their comments, but to outright dismiss that as a possibility would IMO be naive. Unless compelling reasons point in another direction, I suspect (I generally hate to make assumptions) that is exactly what happened. I very much doubt that whoever might (or might not be) behind this has civil society interests at heart.
>
>
>
> I fear that we’re behaving more like the IPC, BC and the GAC right now than we have in the past as NCSG. I don’t mean on the substance of the issue, but more so our approach. We have historically opposed ICANN having a heavy hand in regulating issues that might negatively impact non-commercial registrants’ privacy or their ability to express themselves freely, as well as any attempt to impose or shift unreasonable costs on to them. It’s always been these other groups who’ve advocated and lobbied for ICANN to tighten its stranglehold on Contracted Parties in order to protect their special interests. It seems like times are changing, and we’re joining the club.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2019, at 4:48 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> In answer to Ayden and Michael I am resending to the list comments Amr made a few days ago. They show how the new Registry Agreement still limits price increases effectively. I guess folks who are panicking about uncontrolled price increases didn’t read the actual registry agreement.
>
>
>
> So no, Ayden I am not impressed with the comments of the existing .org registrants because it seems like they are not well-informed - all they hear is the phrase “no more price caps”. Seems like the price increases only affect new registrants.
>
>
>
> But why let facts get in the way of your fun, eh?
>
>
>
>
>
> Milton L Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> From: Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Date: April 25, 2019 at 16:33:35 EDT
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: [Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
>
> Reply-To: Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hi Milton,
>
>
>
> If my understanding of Section 2.10 of the Registry Agreement is correct, registrars can continue to renew existing registrations without an increase in price following an increase in pricing of new registrations by the Registry Operator (RO) for a period of up to 10 years. Additionally, ROs are required to have uniform pricing for registration renewals. This would mean that all renewal prices would remain unchanged, unless they all change across all registrars simultaneously.
>
>
>
> The protections for existing registrants referred to are detailed in 2.10c of the Registry Agreement. The protection is basically that registrants have to agree to renewal prices higher than that of the original registration at the time of the initial registration. It can’t be forced upon them at a later date. This is meant as a provision to “prohibit abusive and/or discriminatory Renewal Pricing practices imposed by Registry Operator without the written consent of the applicable registrant at the time of the initial registration of the domain“.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 9:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree with the letter’s discussion of URS and other RPMs. I agree with Amr that we may need to moderate the language about “unilateral ICANN action” however because PIR may indeed have gone along with this.
>
>
>
> On the issue of price caps, I think we need some factual clarification. If Amr is right and the potential price increases only apply to new registrants, then there is much less of an issue. The proposed renewal says “Protections for existing registrants will remain in place, in line with the base registry agreement.“
>
>
>
> What, exactly, are those “protections for existing registrants”?
>
>
>
> MM
>
>
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 10:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [Urgent] [Public Comment] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing this, Rafik. Speaking for myself, I very much agree with the comment on adding the new gTLD Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) to the PIR contract for .org at this time. As the draft comment rightly points out, these RPMs will not actually be Consensus Policies until after the ICANN Board adopts the recommendations of the Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group, and should not apply to any of the legacy gTLDs, including .org. However to characterize the decision to do so as a unilateral ICANN decision is something I’m not sure of. I presume that PIR negotiated this with ICANN before the public comment period began? I might be wrong, as I’m making an assumption here.
>
>
>
> To be clear, the RPMs that would be applicable here (if I’m not mistaken) are the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and the Trademark Claims RPM (part of the Trademark Clearing House), but not the Sunrise Registrations RPM, obviously, since .org has been around for a while.
>
>
>
> Substantively, I don’t believe the URS will be much of an issue, since it is largely deemed to be an unappealing mechanism for use by Trademark holders, as the stats and anecdotal evidence that has been shared to date indicate. The impact of Trademark Claims, on the other hand, might be very different, and prior to it being reviewed by the RPMs PDP, and adopted as an ICANN policy, I don’t believe adding it to the .org contract in a renewal is a good move.
>
>
>
> On the second issue, where the draft comment disagrees with removing price caps for .org registrations, I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with the rationale or conclusion. I don’t believe PIR’s status as a non-profit entity justifies this. IMO, it imposes unreasonable obligations on PIR that other Registry Operators are not subject to, so effectively penalizing PIR for its status, and its continued mission to “support many excellent causes”, as pointed out in the draft.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, there is little to no evidence that I can see (at least in the draft) that registrants of .org domain names will be negatively impacted by removal of the price cap. My understanding is that this will mainly impact new registrations, not existing ones, but this isn’t addressed at all.
>
>
>
> To me, PIR needs to set its own price taking in to consideration their own consumer base. If they make bad decisions that drive their customers away, I don’t believe this will negatively impact registrants as much as it would PIR itself, especially considering that there are over a thousand gTLDs for registrants to migrate to, should they choose to do so.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2019, at 3:59 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> We have a suggested draft comment ( attached) on proposed renewal of .org agreement  https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en. The deadline for submission is the 29th April and for NCSG PC to review and endorse. Please share your comments abd input.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
> <Org Letter Rev.docx>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
>
>