<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>An ICANN Independent Review Panel (IRP) has found that “ICANN’s action with respect to the Price Cap Decision [removing price caps for “.org” and “.info”] was inconsistent with Sections 1.2(a), 1.2(b), 2.1, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6(a) of the Bylaws and Article III of the Articles of Incorporation.” (Paragraph 505 of the decision)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The decision is at:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-namecheap-icann-final-declaration-redacted-23dec22-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-namecheap-icann-final-declaration-redacted-23dec22-en.pdf</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paragraphs 372 and above, regarding lack of transparency, may be of particular interest to those who participated in discussions regarding ISOC’s proposal to sell “.org”.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And also the following recommendations:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“494. With regard to the 2019 Registry Agreements for .ORG and .INFO, the fundamental issue is that ICANN does not appear to have given sufficient consideration to the strong public opposition to removal of price controls, especially as to .ORG. While ICANN may have discussed and considered this issue internally, ICANN’s public explanation of its decision did not specifically explain why it concluded that price caps were no longer needed, or take into account any market power that .ORG may have in its particular niche of the domain market. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>495. ICANN’s lack of a detailed public explanation was exacerbated by its assertion of the attorney-client privilege as to almost all of its internal documents. The result is that there is virtually no documentary record of ICANN’s internal deliberations or why ICANN decided that price controls were no longer needed. As discussed above, the Panel has decided not to address the precise extent of any obligation to maintain a non-privileged record, but has serious concerns on this subject.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>500. Third, as discussed above, the Panel finds that the evidence that price controls should be retained is much stronger for .ORG than for .INFO, given that .ORG is an original gTLD with a much larger number of DUMs, and serves a special market focused on not-for-profit organizations. Thus, while the ICANN Board should consider what remedial measures to take as to both .ORG and .INFO, the measures for .ORG may be stronger and more extensive than for .INFO.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>502. Fifth, if the Board concludes that some form of price controls for .ORG and/or .INFO are in the global public interest, the Panel recommends that ICANN seek to amend the 2019 Registry Agreements to include appropriate price controls. The registry operator of .ORG has publicly represented that it will not raise prices unreasonably, so it presumably would be willing to agree to some form of price controls. The registry operator for .INFO may also be willing to agree to price controls, given that prices do not appear to have increased by more than what would have been allowed under the prior price control provisions.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The full case file is at:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/irp-namecheap-v-icann-2020-03-03-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/irp-namecheap-v-icann-2020-03-03-en</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Richard<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>