ICA, the Internet Commerce Association, sent a letter today asking ICANN for an explanation of the .org decision.
ICA says that ICANN’s decision to execute the new .org Registry Agreement despite overwhelming public opposition is greatly concerning to stakeholders and raises serious questions about the so-called “bottom-up multi-stakeholder model”.
ICA has “put the questions into the attached letter to Cyrus Namazi, Vice-President of the Global Domains Division, the group at ICANN responsible for the terms found in the .org Registry Agreement. We aren’t the only ones asking how ICANN is acting in the public interest when it adopts policies nearly universally condemned by those affected by those policies. We look forward to Mr. Namazi’s response.”
It seems that .info, .biz and .asia are not mentioned anywhere. Almost all comments opposed the change in the .info, .biz and .asia registry contracts. Why isn’t ICA asking about these contracts too?
These are the 10 questions from ICA to ICANN’s Cyrus Namazi, Senior Vice President of ICANN ‘s Global Domains Division, that signed the 4 registry agreements:
2. If the Board did not make the decision, who made the decision and when was it made?
3. Does ICANN org consider the imposition of URS to involve a policy matter or an operational matter, or both, and why?
4. If the imposition of URS involves a policy matter, why was URS imposed on .org when it is currently the subject of deliberations by the RPM Working Group?
5. Does ICANN org consider the removal of price caps on the .org registry to involve substantial policy issues of great concern to stakeholders, and if not, why not?
6. If ICANN considers the removal of price caps on the .org registry to involve substantial policy issue of great concern to stakeholders, why did it not seek stakeholder input prior to negotiating the renewed Registry Agreement?
7. Does ICANN org agree that the removal of price caps in the renewed .org Registry Agreement has potential financial ramifications in the hundreds of millions of dollars for registrants and others?
8. What were the changes to the Proposed Registry Agreement, if any, in response to the over 3200 public Comments in opposition to it?
9. In the future, will ICANN org establish a robust consultative process with stakeholders and seek public comments prior to negotiating renewed Registry Agreements?
10. Was the decision to execute the renewed Registry Agreement the product of the “bottom-up multi-stakeholder model” and if so, how?
This is the ICA statement from 3 days ago when the news first broke out:
“The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) is profoundly disturbed by ICANN’s decision to remove price caps on .org domain names despite the groundswell of opposition from stakeholders.
On June 30, 2019, ICANN advised that it had executed a renewal agreement with Public Interest Registry and the renewal agreement. This was despite a nearly unprecedented public outcry from stakeholders and from .org registrants in particular, where over 3200 public comments were submitted to ICANN. The outcry came from registrants, nonprofits, community leaders, academics, charities, religious groups, community organizations, and many others. Apparently the ICANN Board allowed ICANN Staff to proceed to execute the renewal agreement without any concern over registrant interests, despite the ICA bringing this issue directly to its attention. The decision to ignore ICANN stakeholders in apparent total disregard for its self-professed “bottom-up multi-stakeholder model” is of great concern and calls into question ICANN’s ability to govern the domain name system in the public interest.”