April 2019 - comments-org-renewal-18mar19@icann.org

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comments of Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. opposing proposed .org, .info, .biz and .asia contract renewals
by George Kirikos May 3, 2019

May 3, 2019

Submitted by: George Kirikos Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. Website: http://www.leap.com/ Date: April 29, 2019 We write to oppose the proposed contract renewals posted by ICANN for the .org, .info, .biz and .asia contracts, as posted for public comments at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/info-renewal-2019-03-18-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/biz-renewal-2019-04-03-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/asia-renewal-2019-03-27-en While our arguments are focused on the .org TLD, to the extent that the contractual terms are similar for the other TLDs, we repeat the same comments for .info, .biz and .org. Indeed, while the majority of the thousands of public comments to date have focused on .org, ICANN should read those comments as also applying to .info, .biz and .org, even if the submitters did not explicitly submit their comments to all 4 email addresses. 1. We support and endorse the great groundswell of opposition as expressed in the thousands of thoughtful public comments opposed to these proposed agreements. It is shocking that ICANN did not learn its lesson from 2006, when similar massive opposition existed for comparable contracts which would have allowed for unlimited fee increases: https://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement/ The proposed contracts are simply unconscionable, and ICANN should instead simply extend the existing contracts by another 6 or 10 years, rather than make any other changes. 2. Within the At-Large, we had a video discussion/debate, archived at: https://freespeech.com/2019/04/10/impact-of-the-urs-and-unlimited-fee-incre… https://youtu.be/KW3I1oFGbv0 where many of the points below are discussed, and I include them here by reference. 3. We particularly agree with the comments and/or blogs submitted/posted by: a) Nat Cohen / Telepathy: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003067.h… http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_eliminat… b) NameCheap: https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/ c) Zak Muscovitch / Internet Commerce Association: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/000006.h… d) Jay Chapman / Digimedia: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/002967.h… e) Andrew Allemann: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003091.h… 4. It should be noted that in the past ICANN trumpeted lower fees as one of its main achievements. For example, the testimony of ICANN General Counsel and Secretary John Jeffrey at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg30233/html/CHRG-109hhrg3023… "STATEMENT OF JOHN JEFFREY, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN) ... Among ICANN's main achievements are the following: ... Market competition. Market competition for generic top-level domain registrations established by ICANN has ****lowered domain name cost in some instances as much as 80 percent with savings for both consumers and businesses.****" (emphasis added) It is not consistent with those past statements for ICANN to abrogate its responsibilities, and permit unlimited fee increases by registry operators. Unlimited fee increases are not in the public interest, and do not even attempt to balance the needs of registrants against those of registry operators. ICANN was handed a responsibility to balance the interest of affected stakeholders when it achieved (against our wishes) independence from US government oversight, and it's now clear that it is not living up to those commitments given such one-sided contracts that have been presented here for public comment. Unlimited fee increases are not balanced, and do not promote stability of the internet or competition. ICANN is engaging in corporate welfare and/or crony capitalism through such anti-competitive proposals as are here before us. 5. As has been pointed out by others, under competition the cost of providing registry services (really just the management of a central database plus the operation of various nameservers) would be under USD $1.00 per domain name per year. This is evidenced by the .IN (India) tender, where Neustar beat Afilias with a winning bid of USD $0.70 per domain name per year (70 cents/domain/yr): http://domainincite.com/23364-afilias-sues-india-to-block-12-million-neusta… A similar competitive tender process happened in France: https://www.thedomains.com/2012/08/07/afnic-awarded-new-contract-to-run-fr-… where AFNIC had to lower the wholesale fees for .FR domain names, and the contract was for 5 years. Similar competitions are held for the .US ccTLD: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/press/2007/Neustar_101907.html You'll note that registry operators do not have presumptive renewal in those ccTLD contracts, yet are more than willing and able to compete effectively and make investments. It was a major policy blunder of ICANN to have agreed in the past to presumptive renewal, a decision that has had a multi-billion dollar negative impact upon registrants, compared to a situation where there are regular competitive tenders. Even the US government has argued for those competitive tenders for both initial agreements and for renewals of agreements: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf (Ms. Garza's analysis begins on the 3rd page of the PDF, after the covering letter by Ms. Baker of the NTIA) The absence of such competitive tenders can only be rectified through the protective fee caps which have been long established, and which the registry operators themselves have agreed to since the times they entered into their respective agreements. If current registry operators are not prepared to renew the existing contracts (which have fee caps in place), then there would be no shortage of other prospective registry operators who would be prepared to step in and replace them (and at a much lower cost, with fee caps in place). Indeed, ICANN themselves have argued (in court) that such caps are *pro-competitive*, see: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-reply-on-cfit-26may06-en.… "....in a single supplier market, price caps are, if anything, procompetitive (Mot. at 13-14);" (line 13, page 6 of 15) 6. We would like to openly make ICANN the following offer: We will run the .org registry for USD $5 per domain name per year, and keep all other existing terms the same. [We would then simply subcontract it to one of the many registry operators who would bid for the job at USD $1 per domain per year or less, and pocket the difference!] This is lower than the $9.93 per domain name per year that PIR currently charges. ICANN cannot of course accept this improved deal, even if it wanted to, because its hands are tied by the foolish decision to agree to presumptive renewal in the past. Looking forward, an agreement to permit unlimited fee increases in the future (far beyond the already generous 10% per year permitted increases) would similarly hamper ICANN's ability to negotiate future "win-win" deals, giving it no negotiating leverage in the future, as it would have already given away the farm if it entered into this proposed agreement. Agreeing to permit unlimited fee increases is like letting the genie out of the bottle, as there's no way that registry operators will ever agree to voluntarily undo such a change in the future. Presumptive renewal means that registry operators can safely ignore any future attempts by ICANN to renegotiate. This is why these contractual changes are so important, because they'll be impossible to fix in the future (without giving up even more to registry operators, e.g. via a buyout or something). This alone should be reason for caution. Given there's no urgency to making a change (i.e. registry operators have *falling* costs, not increasing costs), then the status quo should prevail. 6. Some have suggested that the Internet Society and/or PIR would never raise fees by a large amount. However, "hope is not a strategy." Past performance is no guarantee of the future. Leadership can change, as can priorities/missions. It's clear from section 7.5 of the the draft contract itself: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18m… that ISOC/PIR could simply sell or assign the registry contract to another entity (e.g. Private Equity, just as registry operator Donuts was sold by its founders), and that new owner/entity could take the heat for future egregious fee increases. ICANN would not be able to stop such a deal. Such a sale would allow ISOC to create a huge endowment for itself worth billions of dollars, given that .org is arguably the second most desirable gTLD, after only .com. 7. The ability to renew a domain name for 10 years is not sufficient protection for registrants. Eventually the bill will come due, and nothing can offset the enormous switching costs. Any goodwill/links/etc. built up will be reduced to zero, totally destroying one's investment in one's web identity that may have been built up over 20+ years (even longer than ICANN has existed, in many cases). URLs that have been printed in offline media such as books, DVDs, etc. can't be updated, thus it's impossible for many to simply stop renewing after 10 years and switch, as some people will still see the old URL. E-mails aren't forwarded by the new registrants to those of past registrants, meaning that all existing email addresses can't easily transition to a new domain name without risk. Business cards would need to be reprinted (and can't be "recalled" from past recipients). Registrants expect URLs to be permanent, not transitory. Registrants of legacy gTLDs like com/net/org own their domain names, and are not temporary tenants (like those in the failed new gTLDs). 8. One of the reasons prospective registrants rationally avoid new gTLDs is the lack of certainty over potential future fee increases. As one submission pointed out, they are "leery" of such one-sided contracts, and for good reason. Those failures of the new gTLDs experiment should not be allowed to contaminate the successful and proven legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org. Indeed, if there is to be any harmonization of contracts, the "base agreement" should be that of the successful .com/net/org TLDs which included fee caps, rather than have the future be modeled on the the failed new gTLDs program. Registrants of new gTLDs knew the problems with the lack of price caps, and foolishly agreed to them before registration. Changing the rules for existing registrants of legacy gTLDs is unacceptable, as this amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game, rules which would never have been acceptable to most prior to registration. One submission suggested that as each new gTLD matures, or reaches a critical mass, it should then transition to the legacy contracts. That was a wise suggestion, to bridge the failed new gTLD program with the successful legacy gTLDs. 9. Even ISOC/PIR doesn't enter into such one-sided agreements, given that its own supplier/subcontractor (Afilias) had to win a competitive tender to retain the contract for managing the back-end of the registry (presumably at an even lower fee than it agreed to years ago -- fees would be able to be estimated once the relevant IRS Form 990 forms become public). https://domainnamewire.com/2016/02/16/32-million-org-contract-up-for-bids/ https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/14/org-sticks-afilias-backend/ It's entirely inconsistent that Internet Society doesn't give presumptive renewal and/or permits unlimited fee increases for its own suppliers, yet wants such things for themselves. 10. We oppose the ability for the registry operators to unilaterally create and impose their own mandatory RPMs upon registrants. See, for example: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-addendum-18… "Specification 7, § 1 The terms of Section 1 of Specification 7 are hereby amended and restated in their entirety as follows: “Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator ******may develop and implement RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights.****** Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN-accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD.” (page 6, emphasis added) This should be left to the GNSO, to develop only policies that have consensus, and which balance the needs of both rights holders and registrants. For example, suppose PIR (or another registry operator) was allowed to unilaterally create a RPM on their own which allowed for complaints to be filed for a fee of $100, but which required registrants post a $1 million bond if they wish to file any response to the complaint. Such a one-sided policy could be created by a registry operator under the proposed terms, and would ignore the requirement that ICANN policies need to balance the concerns of all affected stakeholders (including registrants). 11. We also oppose the searchable WHOIS, which ignores the ongoing EPDP on WHOIS: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18m… (page 37) "Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Registry Operator must offer a searchable Whois service compliant with the requirements described in Section 1.10 of Specification 4 of this Agreement." as it doesn't properly balance the privacy rights of registrants against those who would go on fishing expeditions. A searchable WHOIS system should only ever be adopted, if and only if the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) equally becomes public and searchable, in return. If the TMCH is kept secret and non-searchable, then the WHOIS should not be searchable either. 12. Additional RPMs that were developed for new gTLDs were the result of bad predictions that were made of massive cybersquatting prior to the adoption of the program. For example, in testimony before the US government: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg74251/html/CHRG-112shrg7425… "First, the immediate costs imposed on business is likely to be in the multi billions of dollars." "This Program in aggregate has multi-billion dollar implications for all marketers, both in the commercial and the nonprofit sectors, and their brands. It would cause irreparable harm and damage to the entire online business community. It would throw the domain name universe into substantial confusion for both marketers and consumers." "So there are billions of dollars that are going to be spent and it's not going to be providing a use for the economy." "And when we're talking about billions of dollars here, when we're talking about companies with 3,000 or more brands, even big companies will be facing really large expenses. So this is a very, very significant economic issue for this country and for the world." "An unlimited expansion of the TLDs will cost the business community billions of dollars." "The unlimited expansion of TLDs would dramatically increase the cost and complexity for trademark holders to protect their rights. The immediate cost imposed on businesses is likely to be in the billions of dollars." "We believe ICANN's gTLD program would impose billions of dollars in unnecessary costs on the restaurant industry at a time when restaurant operators are looking forward to investing in their businesses and hiring employees after the worst recession in decades." These predictions exaggerated and overestimated the actual risk that was realized by the launch of new gTLDs. Thus, the justification for the adoption of the URS and other RPMs turned out to be false predictions, and should now be undone. They were never intended for, nor should be imposed upon, registrants of legacy gTLDs. Prospective registry operators at the time were willing to accept such terms, as the trademark lobby threatened to thwart and delay the release of new gTLDs unless their demands were met. Registry operators were blinded by dollar signs in their eyes, for example, predictions by Name.Space: "Name.Space, whose business has a potential value of over 1 billion dollars, has been deprived the opportunity to fully launch and operate its portfolio of gTLD properties under what we believe is the most responsible, fair, and ethical practices yet to be employed in the commercial domain name industry." (same link as above for testimony) 13. Given that the RPM PDP of the GNSO is actively reviewing the URS, including determining whether or not it should be a consensus policy, no steps should be taken by ICANN staff and/or the registry operators to unilaterally impose it upon registrants. Indeed, there are numerous proposals to actively change the URS (including a proposal to explicitly eliminate it), see: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals (click the "Individual URS Proposal" tab to see the 33 individual proposals, 14 of them from us) The current URS is deeply flawed. For example of just one of the defects, currently complaints are required to be in English (unlike the language rules for the UDRP, where complaints must be in the language of the registration agreement, which varies by registrar). Thus, many registrants defending a URS dispute have no idea what the actual URS complaint is about, if they do not understand English. This is particularly egregious, given that new gTLDs are most popular in China. Such flawed RPMs whose creation was rushed before the launch of new gTLDs, and which are tilted in favour of large multinational companies, need to be reviewed and corrected before they are ever adopted for legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org. 14. In conclusion, ICANN's proposed contracts represent a failure of the multi-stakeholder model, and are instead evidence that ICANN has been captured by registry operators. ICANN claims these contracts are the result of a negotiation, yet what did registrants receive in return for these contractual changes? We received absolutely nothing in return, except for higher fees and higher regulatory burdens (via the imposition of the URS), with all the gains being received by the registry operators at the expense of registrants. That's not a negotiation -- that's a giveaway. We expect and demand that ICANN and the registry will simply extend the current contracts, rather than enter into these one-sided arrangements. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1

Re: [Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] [External] Re: Last Try for Now
by Joshua Brow April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

I manage a client's locations. They aren't interested either. Let me be clear. I have had my fill of Yelp! I do not want any further marketing at all from your company. The end. Thank you. Any more will result in filing complaints. Goodbye. On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 16:37 Tim Hardin <tdhardin(a)yelp.com> wrote: > sir you dont have it for your granada hills location. > [image: Bio] > > Tim Hardin | Account Executive, Yelp Inc. > P: 480-214-8364 > Support > <http://www.yelp-support.com/Yelp_for_Business_Owners?biz=1&l=en_US> | > Blog > <https://www.yelpblog.com/section/business?utm_source=rep_email_signature&ut…> > | Success Stories <https://biz.yelp.com/support/case_studies> > > New Post! *** 4 Things You Should Know About Advertising On Yelp in 2019 > <https://www.yelpblog.com/2018/04/4-things-you-should-know-about-advertising…> > *Please note*: phone calls with Yelp may be monitored and recorded for > quality purposes. > > Need a break from email? Unsubscribe > <https://yelp.secure.force.com/emailSettings> > Yelp Inc., 140 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA 94105, U.S.A. > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:35 PM Joshua Brow <joshua(a)jbglobal.net> wrote: > >> Dude, I already have it. Go away. >> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 16:34 Tim Hardin <tdhardin(a)yelp.com> wrote: >> >>> ok awesome lets get that setup for you! >>> [image: Bio] >>> >>> Tim Hardin | Account Executive, Yelp Inc. >>> P: 480-214-8364 >>> Support >>> <http://www.yelp-support.com/Yelp_for_Business_Owners?biz=1&l=en_US> | >>> Blog >>> <https://www.yelpblog.com/section/business?utm_source=rep_email_signature&ut…> >>> | Success Stories <https://biz.yelp.com/support/case_studies> >>> >>> New Post! *** 4 Things You Should Know About Advertising On Yelp in 2019 >>> <https://www.yelpblog.com/2018/04/4-things-you-should-know-about-advertising…> >>> *Please note*: phone calls with Yelp may be monitored and recorded for >>> quality purposes. >>> >>> Need a break from email? Unsubscribe >>> <https://yelp.secure.force.com/emailSettings> >>> Yelp Inc., 140 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA 94105, U.S.A. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:09 PM Josh B <joshua(a)jbglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you. I’ve tried the ads thing, and it wasn’t for me. I only care >>>> for the enhanced profile. Best of luck. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *JB Ventures* >>>> >>>> 661.513.4231 <+16615134231> >>>> >>>> JBVentures.Agency <https://jbventures.agency> >>>> >>>> *Making Your Digital Presence Profound* >>>> >>>> Google Partners | Shopify Experts | GoDaddy Pro Plus >>>> <https://godaddy.pro/jbventures> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From: *Tim Hardin <tdhardin(a)yelp.com> >>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, April 30, 2019 12:24 >>>> *To: *Joshua Brow <joshua(a)jbglobal.net> >>>> *Subject: *Re: [External] Re: Last Try for Now >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Will do, thanks! >>>> >>>> [image: >>>> https://t.yesware.com/t/3ef8e811dc1d8b97a82e3a151d8ac75272afe8f8/4b08b130cc…] >>>> >>>> [image: Bio] >>>> >>>> Tim Hardin | Account Executive, Yelp Inc. >>>> >>>> P: 480-214-8364 >>>> >>>> *Support* >>>> <http://www.yelp-support.com/Yelp_for_Business_Owners?biz=1&l=en_US> | >>>> *Blog* >>>> <https://www.yelpblog.com/section/business?utm_source=rep_email_signature&ut…> >>>> | *Success Stories* <https://biz.yelp.com/support/case_studies> >>>> >>>> New Post! *** 4 Things You Should Know About Advertising On Yelp in >>>> 2019 >>>> <https://www.yelpblog.com/2018/04/4-things-you-should-know-about-advertising…> >>>> >>>> *Please note*: phone calls with Yelp may be monitored and recorded for >>>> quality purposes. >>>> >>>> Need a break from email? Unsubscribe >>>> <https://yelp.secure.force.com/emailSettings> >>>> Yelp Inc., 140 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA 94105, U.S.A. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:23 PM Joshua Brow <joshua(a)jbglobal.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Take me off your list Tim. Thank you, but do not call me. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 12:10 Tim Hardin <tdhardin(a)yelp.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Joshua, >>>> >>>> I've reached out a few times and haven’t heard back from you. >>>> >>>> Is Yelp something you'd like to learn about? Or, more importantly, are >>>> you in a place where you can accept new business from Yelpers? 1074LS >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: >>>> https://t.yesware.com/t/3ef8e811dc1d8b97a82e3a151d8ac75272afe8f8/12412825d8…] >>>> >>>> [image: Bio] >>>> >>>> Tim Hardin | Account Executive, Yelp Inc. >>>> >>>> P: 480-214-8364 >>>> >>>> *Support* >>>> <http://www.yelp-support.com/Yelp_for_Business_Owners?biz=1&l=en_US> | >>>> *Blog* >>>> <https://www.yelpblog.com/section/business?utm_source=rep_email_signature&ut…> >>>> | *Success Stories* <https://biz.yelp.com/support/case_studies> >>>> >>>> New Post! *** 4 Things You Should Know About Advertising On Yelp in >>>> 2019 >>>> <https://www.yelpblog.com/2018/04/4-things-you-should-know-about-advertising…> >>>> >>>> *Please note*: phone calls with Yelp may be monitored and recorded for >>>> quality purposes. >>>> >>>> Need a break from email? Unsubscribe >>>> <https://yelp.secure.force.com/emailSettings> >>>> Yelp Inc., 140 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA 94105, U.S.A. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Miquel Molina April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

Hello! I am against removing price caps on any domain extension. I wrote to Russ Weinstein (globalsupport(a)icann.org) on 26th April. Look below for further details. I found your email address at https://www.internetcommerce.org/comment-org/ Advancements in technology should be driving the cost of operating a registry down, yet prices keep going up? Removing price caps is unfair to the millions of domain registrants. They will have no price protections. Every registrant will be at the complete mercy and whims of the registry. This could result in a transfer of funds from millions of non- profits to one non-profit, with no benefits to the domain registrants. Removing price caps will be a step backwards. Please do not remove them. Thank you. Best regards, Miquel Molina i Diez >On Friday 26 April 2019 00:47:42 Miquel Molina <miquel(a)polseguera.com> wrote Hello, Russ Weinstein! I wanted to write to you online, but you do not have an online contact form. When I clicked on Submit Comment, a window opened and told me to use an application to send you this email message. Thankfully, there was your email address. I just wanted to let you know that I am against those price increases because they will affect the Internet negatively, and many webmasters and Internet companies may not be able to pay them. You should not remove price caps under any circumstances because webmasters and Internet companies would be at the mercy of unscrupulous Public Interest Registry (PIR). This cannot be allowed because the Internet is knowledge and makes the world progress. Please do not remove price caps. Thank you. Best regards, Miquel Molina i Diez >On Thursday 25 April 2019 14:02:50 "Namecheap" <support(a)namecheap.com> wrote Namecheap We have important information to share with you that can affect the price of your domains. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ <https://www.namecheap.com> View in browser <https://links.namecheap.com/e/evib?_t=9a766a4fa5294d089b01463bac20344b&_m=2… xt1PswGSNf5E8XQGSizjhfYCMTNWmJ6DCM2cUDMKCc7lMOx8TYt8tFmx4DeUHenPSCwnU2vTrUmvf5n9z> <https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/> Help Us Avoid Domain Price Increases Hi Miquel, We have important information <https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/> to share with you that can affect the price of your domains. What’s Happening ICANN, the organization that oversees domain names, has proposed removing price caps on all .org, .info, and .biz top level domains. This change could significantly increase the wholesale price that Namecheap pays for domains, and would force us to pass along those increases to you. Who Sets the Prices Wholesale registries charge Namecheap a set fee per domain name per year. Namecheap then adds a little markup to cover things like support, provisioning domain services, transaction fees, etc. ICANN includes a provision in its contracts with registries that limits what they can charge. Why ICANN is Doing This ICANN’s current contract with Public Interest Registry (PIR), the group that runs the .org domain name, allows PIR to increase the wholesale price of .org domains by 10% a year. Now ICANN is proposing extending the contract to operate .org butletting PIR set whatever prices it wants. Rather than a 10% increase to renew your domain next year, PIR could suddenly start charging registrars like Namecheap 100 times as much. In turn, registrars would have no choice but to pass these charges on to customers. Similar contract proposals may also impact .info and .biz prices. Speak Up Against the Change The good news is that domain owners like yourself can take action to stop these price increases.Act now by sending your comments to ICANN before April 29, 2019. You can leave your comment on each proposal here: .Org comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en> .Info comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/info-renewal-2019-03-18-en> .Biz comment period <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/biz-renewal-2019-04-03-en> Find Out More <https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/> FOLLOW NAMECHEAP <https://www.facebook.com/Namecheap/> <https://twitter.com/namecheap> <https://www.namecheap.com/blog/> About Us <https://www.namecheap.com/about.aspx> | Support <https://www.namecheap.com/support.aspx> | Privacy Policy <https://www.namecheap.com/legal/general/privacy-policy.aspx> | Terms & Conditions <https://www.namecheap.com/legal.aspx> 4600 East Washington Street, Suite 305, Phoenix, AZ 85034, USA <> Copyright © 2019 Namecheap.com <https://www.namecheap.com> <https://www.namecheap.com>

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] .org domain price increase comment
by Seth Borg April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

I don't want to see .org domain name prices increase. It's a horrible idea to let PIR set whatever price it wants for .org domains. Why would you even think of doing this?

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] My Personal Website
by Daniel Luck April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

Dear .org comments: I've just setup my own Wordpress Site and Domain: danielluck.org I would like to keep prices affordable for those want to learn about web design and development. Thank you. Daniel B Luck dluck007(a)gmail.com danielluck.org

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Oppose removal of price caps on legacy TLDs
by Sandeep April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

I oppose the removal of price caps on any of the legacy TLDs as doing so will only create limitless price increases that will impact small business owners who cannot afford to keep the domain and promote their business online.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please retain price cap on domain renewals
by Sameer Sainani April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

Hi, As an entrepreneur I rely heavily on domain names and the IP related to them. Removing caps essentially forces entities and people without buying power to lose their substantial investments. Renewing for 10 years is not a solution either. Please retain renewal caps. Our livelihood and investments depend on it. Best Regards, Sameer

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by stormrider67＠icloud.com April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

I wish to disagree with ICANN’s proposal to remove pricing caps on .org domain names. The .org and similar registries are the backbone of the internet since its founding, and should be considered a resource that belongs to the web as a whole, with the registries expected to continue to act as stewards for the older TLDs. Sincerely, Michael Clark

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please protect nonprofits
by adskar＠tutanota.com April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

Don't remove price caps on .org domains, they should be outside the rent-seeking monopolies. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by ✔ Denis Mamanov April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

I am a domain name registrant. Legacy gTLDs are fundamentally different from for-profit new gTLDs and should be treated that way. Legacy TLDs are what the internet was built on. They are essentially a public trust. They are very different than new gTLDs which were created, bought and paid for by private parties. Registrants of these legacy extensions should be entitled to price predictability & stability. Advancements in technology should be driving the cost of operating a registry down, yet prices keep going up? Removing price caps is unfair to the millions of domain registrants. They will have no price protections. Every registrant will be at the complete mercy and whims of the registry. This could result in a transfer of funds from millions of non-profits to one non-profit, with no benefits to the domain registrants. ICANN is supposed to represent a "bottom up, consensus-driven multistakeholder model". ICANN should not unilaterally impose URS in legacy TLDs when that issue is precisely what is being examined by the volunteer ICANN Working Group who has been mandated to review this issue. ICANN should be looking out for the .org registrants, in particular the non-profits. There is no "public benefit" justification to these changes. It is just a handout to business at the expense of registrants’ rights and protections. Where are the protections for the millions of domain registrants that this could effect in a negative way? These changes would give way too much power to the registry. This is not acceptable for a "public benefit" organization that exists to represent many stakeholders.

1 0