[ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead, patents and public stewardship

[Nigel Roberts]

I was also there, on the ICANN Board at the time.

But, notwithstanding, might I gently point out the events of 3 or 4 
years ago isn't exactly HISTORY, is it?

Unless you take an extremely literal interpretation of the word.


N.



On 2/5/24 03:07, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It appears that Bill Woodcock via Internet-history <woody at pch.net> said:
>>> The stuff about price increases is self-evidently ridiculous to anyone who knows how gTLD pricing works
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-renewal-of-org-registry-agreement-18-03-2019
>>
>> “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.”
>>
>> That actually happened.  Not by accident, and not without the expectation that it could be exploited.
> 
> It is true that it happened.  Everything else is part of the malicious bullshit.
> 
> The contract change was at ICANN's request to make the contract
> consistent with other registry contracts which don't have price caps.
> It happened long before anyone approached ISOC about selling PIR. PIR
> didn't care since the price they charged was and is far below the cap.
> Needless to say, if PIR had any idea how people would leap to absurd
> conclusions, they would have told ICANN no, keep it in the contract.
> 
> For what it's worth, Ethos (the buyer) publicly committed to keep the
> price below the old cap if the deal went through, but by then nobody
> was listening.
> 
> I'm not guessing or theorizing, I was there. If people claim I'm
> lying, not much we can do about that.
> 
> R's,
> John