You might have to pay a lot more for your .org and .info domains in the future.
The terms are similar to those found in new top level domain name agreements that have resulted in some registry operators jacking up prices as much as 30x. While those cases were for little-used domains, .Org currently has 10 million domains under management.
In announcing the proposed contract, ICANN stated:
In alignment with the base registry agreement, the price cap provisions in the current .org agreement, which limited the price of registrations and allowable price increases for registrations, are removed from the .org renewal agreement. Protections for existing registrants will remain in place, in line with the base registry agreement. This change will not only allow the .org renewal agreement to better conform with the base registry agreement, but also takes into consideration the maturation of the domain name market and the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with registry operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement
The protections for existing registrants are basically the right to renew their domains for up to 10 years in advance at current prices.
ICANN’s language will likely be cited by Verisign in future price increase requests.
The current contract allows Public Interest Registry and Afilias to increase wholesale prices by 10% per year.
ICANN also added Uniform Rapid Suspension to the contracts.
Both contracts are open to public comment until April 29: .Org comments .Info comments
wow..
well, to be fair .info is a walking zombie anyway and .org with its 10m registrations will probably lose 20-25% of those if prices are jacked 50%.
Just one argument more for sticking to .com. Flight to safety, flight to quality.
(As if you’d need any)
It’s not like the heavy breathing, dripping salivation and bared fangs are not on full display panting for the ability to do this with .com though.
Agree. .com is the endgame, the holy grail. but the pushback will be considerably greater so they test the waters with legacies like .org and .info.
smaller communities.
Right – now that a vast multitude of non-profits and charitable org’s must be using .org, remove those price caps.
As the classic rock song goes, “money, money, money, money – money!”
It’s an evil world, and it shows. This time I will say I doubt even this would have happened were it not for the “transition” from US oversight, though we certainly have plenty of our own evil and corruption to go around here.
The RPM PDP working group is currently reviewing the URS (which is a cheaper and faster variation of the UDRP, for new gTLDs), but now it’s being unilaterally imposed on .org registrants? This subverts policymaking and the bottom-up nature of ICANN, as one of the proposals in the working group is to specifically *not* make the URS a consensus policy applicable to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org.
Obviously with regards to price caps, their elimination is completely unacceptable. Being able to renew in advance of the price increases is not adequate protection, as eventually someone will have to pay the higher renewal fees.
ICANN is not adequately representing the interests of registrants/consumers in these one-sided contracts which only benefit registry operators.
Bad news for site owners, not like they can go anywhere else short of starting again.
The uncertainty will like crush .org values.
It’s stunning that ICANN would show such utter disregard for the interests of the registrant community.
How could ICANN be blind to the fact that legacy extensions are entirely different animals than new gTLDs?
Registrants in legacy extensions registered domain name in, broadly speaking, a declining or stable price environment. In the case of .com, for the past 20 years prices had dropped from $100 for 2 years, to $70 for two years, to under $10 per year as a base price where they have remained ever since despite unjustified price increases by Verisign.
The major legacy extensions predate the current registry operators.
The new gTLDs created entirely new namespaces where any registrant knew that they were subject to price changes and price increases at the whim of the new gTLD operator. It was buyer beware in the new gTLDs.
In the legacy extensions the name spaces were not bought and paid for by the registry operator as they were in the new gTLD spaces. The expectation was that prices would remain stable.
Treating .org the same as a new gTLD demonstrates a shocking level of obliviousness. Why would ICANN think it is a good idea to allow the .org registry operator the right to price gouge registrants in .org, especially when the registrant base has a heavy concentration of non-profits.
ICANN continues to blunder both here and in the .com agreement renewal because they are blind to a couple key facts-
1. The operators of legacy extensions don’t own those name spaces. They were created for the public at large, and the registry operators are merely providing a service of maintaining the database and the underlying infrastructure;
2. Legacy name spaces bring with them millions of registered users who can’t easily pick up and move to a different domain name, when the switching costs are often prohibitively high. Legacy extensions with their existing base of users who chose to “build a home” in that extension did so with the expectation of stable prices. This is a fundamental difference from those who took the risk registering domains in new gTLDs. Treating legacy and new gTLDs as the same-
“the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with registry operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement”
exposes the legacy registrant base to being plundered by the registry operators for no good reason. ICANN is creating a hostage situation and allowing registry operators to demand whatever exorbitant ransoms they wish from registrants in return for allowing the registrants to continue to use their domain names.
Well said, Nat. If the goal is to have the registries use the same “base agreement”, then the new gTLD registry agreement should have price caps (just like .com/net/org), rather than giving the registry operators of legacy TLDs a windfall gift. The current registry agreements for .org/info already permit 10% annual price increases, which far exceeds inflation. Under competitive tenders, prices would be much, much lower (the .in ccTLD for India had a tender, where the winning bid was 70 cents per domain per year, 90% lower than the current fees for .org).
Making the URS mandatory is also a windfall for NAF and TM holders, and raises burdens on registrants. Folks need to start paying attention to the work of the RPM PDP, to change these anti-registrant policies. A TM holder can go after a domain name that has been registered for 20+ years using the URS for under $500 (cheaper than the UDRP), and the registrant has just 14 days to respond, although they can argue for up to 7 more days, if they respond within the 14 days — don’t take 15 day holidays where you can’t access email!). There have been numerous questionable decisions under the URS, and that procedure is still under review by the RPM PDP. Folks haven’t been paying much attention to the URS, as it has never applied to com/net/org but only to “worthless” throwaway new gTLD domain names.
One can see the list of proposals to change the URS at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals#URSProposals-2028293257
(see the “Individual URS Proposal” tab for 14 proposals from me)
The utter GREED that ICANN is showing in their decisions is sickening.
How will Icann make more money from the decision?
Top ICANN staff depart, and join for-profit businesses profiting from the decisions being made by them. It’s happened over and over again.
Yeah I get you.
Ever heard of the “revolving door” Snoopy?
For example our good ol’ John Berard here: https://icannwiki.org/John_Berard
once was a member of the ICANN Business Constituency. 5 years later all of a sudden he is the administrative contact for the Vox Populi Registry, the registry that runs the infamous .sucks TLD.
Delegation Record for .SUCKS
(Generic top-level domain)
Sponsoring Organisation
Vox Populi Registry Ltd.
3-110 Governors Square,
Seven Mile Beach,
Grand Cayman,
KY1-1108
Cayman Islands
Administrative Contact
John Berard
Vox Populi Registry Ltd.
3-110 Governors Square,
Seven Mile Beach,
Grand Cayman,
Cayman Islands, KY1-1108
Cayman Islands
Email: [email protected]
Voice: +18299473020
Fax: +61398661970
Yes, THE .sucks TLD, about which former congressman Bob Goodlatte once said “trademark holders are “being shaken down” by the registry’s fees” and Jay Rockefeller said that .sucks is a “a predatory shakedown scheme” and “Approving ‘.sucks’, a gTLD with little or no public interest value, will have the effect of undermining the credibility ICANN has slowly been building with skeptical stakeholders.”
I wonder how that happened?
Coincidence?
Vox Populi Registry Ltd.
3-110 Governors Square,
Seven Mile Beach,
Grand Cayman,
KY1-1108
Cayman Islands
Uniregistrar Corp.
3-110 Governors Square
Seven Mile Beach
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands
1361GT KY1-1108
Legacy extensions are an entirely different animal than the new gTLDs and should not be treated the same.
It’s ridiculous to even consider eliminating the price caps on legacy extensions like .org and .info. If anything, consumer costs should be dropping in legacy extensions as database management / storage gets cheaper every year. Put them out to bid and see how low the registration costs can go.
Registrants of new gTLDs signed up knowing (if they read the fine print) that prices could rise exponentially, and in some cases they have.
That is not the case for legacy extensions as millions of small businesses and nonprofits purchased names and built upon them, and switching names is prohibitively expensive.
This is BS! Really ICANN?! Shooting yourself in the foot again I see.
You continue to make mistake after mistake!
You’re costing honest, hard working people, a lot of money.
Also, you can’t tell me that the new CEO of the .Org registry didn’t have anything to do with this either.
Smells like Donuts to me.
ICANN = I CAN’T
ICANN is one of the most corrupt organization in the world.
They are digging their own grave.
The green need to end or ICANN’T misdeeds will get exposed to the world.
Complete bullshit.
Brad
It’s all politics. Money talks.
ICANN is corrupt just like the rest of the world.
so in the agreement we see
“and the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with registry operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement ”
who’s goal is this?. Was this goal the result of a bottom up process among the constituents of ICANN.
who does ICANN represent?, it may be made up of the registries and the registrars, but if it represents them, than it is a lobbying organization and trade association – and needs a counter party to represent the registrants of domain names and the broader internet community.
Page Howe