Plans are afoot to transfer the management of the .org top-level domain name to a private, commercial entity. A broad range of concerns are being expressed about how that arrangement is likely to affect NGOs and other non-profit organisations, once implemented and over the long term.

 

It is interesting how a seemingly innocuous development, which did not get on the radar of most people, could have long term and far-reaching consequences in how organisations establish their web presence. In essence, it was recently announced that management of the .org top-level domain, which is widely used by non-profit and non-governmental organisations around the world, will no longer be managed by a non-profit, public-benefit organisation (the Public Internet Registry), but a private equity firm, Ethos Capital.

Several concerns have been raised about the sale, including the lack of transparency surrounding the deal – especially since public participation, multistakeholderism, and democratic decision-making are core and guiding principles in the Internet Governance space.  Additionally, there is a concern that in having the .org domain managed by a commercial entity, the traditionally capped price and strictly controlled rate increase of .org domain names, which is currently set at USD 9.93, could change considerably, so that Ethos Capital can get reasonable return on its investment.

The proposed offer to buy Public Interest Registry (PIR), plus control of the top level .org domain, is approximately USD 1.1 billion, with around USD 360 million being financed by a loan. Hence, in addition to servicing the loan, the domain registration fees payable will also need to cover the operating costs associated with managing a top-level domain, along with demonstrating to Ethos Capital and its shareholders, that this investment was indeed worthwhile.

Currently, and out of the more than 350 million domain names that have been registered worldwide, only around 10 million (or around 2.8%) are .org domains. In 2018, PIR reported just under USD 93 million as revenue from domain registration fees (Source:  Fast Company). Further, and perhaps equally important, is the fact that the number of .org registrants has remain constant over the past several years; hence, the most likely option to increase revenues, would be to increase the registration domain fee.

So what could this mean for non-profits and NGOs?

Relatively speaking, and to a considerably degree, many non-profits operate on a shoestring budget – where  they are being asked to do a lot with a limited budget, or little or no financial support. Although paying under USD 10.00 for a domain name might seem like a steal, should the price increase substantially, and cognisant of all of the attendant expenses of managing a website, such as web hosting, privacy, security, redundancy, the value proposition for organisations develop and maintain a website could also change.

Having said this, it must be noted that in a statement made earlier this year, PIR, Internet Society and Ethos Capital indicated that they intend to maintain the status quo – although they make it clear that they do have the option to raise prices:

Committing to limit any potential increase in the price of a .org domain registration to no more than 10% per year on average, even though today there are no regulatory pricing constraints on PIR or virtually every other domain name registry.

(Source:  KeyPointsAbout.org)

Although the annual rate of increase might be maintained at no more than 10% per year, the inclusion of ‘on average’ may provide considerable wiggle room. Currently, regardless of the domain name, one fixed price is payable across the board. In the future, a system of premium domain names or premium registrations, could be established, such a based on location, or annual turnover, etc.

It has also been posited that in order to manage expenses, the administrators of the .org domain might relax the quality of the service they provide, by not putting enough resources into its operations. Currently, registry downtime is effectively zero, but .org domain registrants could begin to experience, among other things, people not being able to access websites and email.

Are there options for non-profits and NGOs?

First, it is recommended that organisations pay attention to the on-going debate, and to the extent possible, participate in the conversation. Although entities like Mozilla Foundation, Wikimedia Foundation, the Internet Archive and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have been quite vocal. It is likely that the smaller non-profits and NGOs – those working in the trenches in developing countries, such as those in the Caribbean – will be the ones most adversely affected.

Second, although there is some appeal of a .org domain name due to its non-geographic reference, if acquiring or keeping a .org domain name becomes prohibitive, there may be a compelling case for organisations to revisit country code top-level domains (such as .jm (Jamaica), .tt (Trinidad and Tobago), .lc (Saint Lucia), .mx (Mexico) .nz (New Zealand), .fi (Fiji)), especially for organisations that primarily serve their local communities. In the Caribbean region, it may mean that the country domain managers/registries may need to incentivise take-up among local organisations, and remove the red tape that frequently is experienced.

Finally, in the era of social media, where it is likely that much of the engagement between non-profits/NGOs and the public is taking place, the argument for maintaining a website may be further eroded. Frequently, websites are seen as formal and static platforms, which are updated on an ad hoc basis, or even rarely. Their set-up and maintenance require skills that small organisation might not have in-house. As a result, and to a considerable degree, much of the current happenings of the organisation are being posted on Facebook, Instagram and/or Twitter. Hence, if the current arrangements for securing a .org domain name changes significantly, to the point where it undermines its value proposition, an even greater reliance on social media might could be considered.

 

 

Image credit:  Public Domain Files