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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Against removing price caps on .org domains
by Aleks Gekht April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

I'm writing to request that ICANN reconsider removing registration price caps on .org domains. Not only is .org one of the most widely used and recognized TLD's, but it’s also the one mostly used by small and non-profit organisations, for which even a few extra dollars a year would be a sizable expense. Removing the caps on this TLD will undoubtedly lead to significant price increases and consequently to many non-profits and small organisations forced to abandon their .org domains in favour of something cheaper. This in turn will lead to a significant increase in web squatting and phishing, where malicious players would pray on these abandon domains and then use them to scam unsuspecting visitors. .org TLD is very well established and the current governance and cost structure works well. It does not need such drastic change. Regards, -Aleks utf8=âœ“ authenticity_token=bMPpXCEBNFn9I41emCC7BUPoyOmxnI5SJNT5x3zFCUiVMahpLTm8HJyyB28uFO4q8wVqXrCXtX6UTvWwAIgAmQ== terms_of_services=yes commit=Continue

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by TheVanoq April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

I am a domain name registrant. I've read about a lot of bad decisions under the UDRP. The URS seems even worse. I heard the URS is very new and is being reviewed now to see if it is working properly. It is too soon to include an untested policy on .org domains where for a few hundred dollars anyone could try to shut down someone else's website. Telling the .org registry that it can charge any price it wants for renewing a domain name is a terrible idea. Why would you allow them to set a crazy high price? They could try to force the domain owners to pay a very high price each year to renew their domain name, and if the domain owner either won't or can't, then the .org registry could take away their domain name, set a high registration price on it, and then try to find someone else who is willing to pay a high price for it. This is very unfair to long time .org domain owners who may see their prices raised sky high for no reason. You let the new domain extensions charge any price they want, but that hasn't gone so well. Lots of people got burned when the new registries offered low rates for the first year, and then after people registered the domain names and some built web sites on them, some of the prices were raised through the roof. .Org has been working just fine for decades where the prices maybe go up a little bit each year. Allowing huge price increases from one year to the next could ruin .org for everybody. I think you should pay a little more attention to what is good for the owners of .org domain names. The registries are doing fine. They don't need your help as they are already making plenty of money.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] .org domain renewal increases
by Jennifer Bullard April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

I am writing to request that iCANN continue to control the rate of increase for .org domains. Thank you, Jennifer Bullard

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by CJ Gross April 26, 2019

April 26, 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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed iCann renewal fee increase
by Haggag April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

Hi, Please do not increase your renewal fee for the .Org domains, that is not fair. Thank you Haggag Hussein

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Matthias Ellmer April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

I am a domain name registrant. I believe that legacy gTLDs are fundamentally different from for-profit new gTLDs. Legacy TLDs are essentially a public trust, unlike new gTLDs which were created, bought and paid for by private interests. Registrants of legacy TLDs are entitled to price stability and predictability, and should not be subject to price increases with no maximums. Unlike new gTLDs, registrants of legacy TLDs registered their names and made their online presence on legacy TLDs on the basis that price caps would continue to exist. Unrestrained price increases on the millions of .org registrants who are not-for-profits or non-profits would be unfair to them. Unchecked price increases have the potential to result in hundreds of millions of dollars being transferred from these organizations to one non-profit, the Internet Society, with .org registrants receiving no benefit in return. ICANN should not allow one non-profit nearly unlimited access to the funds of other non-profits. ICANN appears to be entirely catering to registries by removing price caps. ICANN should stand up for the public interest and registrants!

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by NAD Myanmar Adventist April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

I am a .org registrant. ICANN staff 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 policy making is supposed to be a ‘bottom up, multi-stakeholder model’. I believe that legacy gTLDs are fundamentally different from for-profit new gTLDs. Legacy TLDs are essentially a public trust, unlike new gTLDs which were created, bought and paid for by private interests. Registrants of legacy TLDs are entitled to price stability and predictability, and should not be subject to price increases with no maximums. Unlike new gTLDs, registrants of legacy TLDs registered their names and made their online presence on legacy TLDs on the basis that price caps would continue to exist. Unrestrained price increases on the millions of .org registrants who are not-for-profits or non-profits would be unfair to them. Unchecked price increases have the potential to result in hundreds of millions of dollars being transferred from these organizations to one non-profit, the Internet Society, with .org registrants receiving no benefit in return. ICANN should not allow one non-profit nearly unlimited access to the funds of other non-profits. ICANN appears to be entirely catering to registries by removing price caps. ICANN should stand up for the public interest and registrants!

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Yashvi Paupiah April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

I am a .org registrant (non-profit). ICANN does not seem to recognize the difference between a legacy extension created with the support of the US government, that predates the existence of ICANN and that has millions of existing users and the brand new extensions that started off with a new set of rules, in particular no price controls, and no existing registrants. They have completely different characteristics, history, and ownership structure. It is not acceptable for ICANN to ignore these differences and to propose that they be treated the same. Removing price caps is not fair to .org domain owners. Many of them have websites that they have used for years. If price caps are removed, the cost to renew their domain names may become too expensive, and they could be forced to give up websites that are important to them. The Uniform Rapid Suspension policy is too new and untested to apply on domain names that may be 20 years old or more. With the URS, the domain names could be taken down in a matter of days with little notice. ICANN should be doing more to protect owners of .org domain names. Why is ICANN trying to remove price protections for .org domain owners, so many of which are non-profits, so that they can be overcharged for their domain names?

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Dot Org registry agreement renewal.
by Yashvi Paupiah April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

Dot Org is not only used by big corporation but smaller organisions and non profits in developing countries. The total cost yearly for buying and renewal of a domain name is $10.11 which is fair pricing and is affordable to everyone. Removing the pricing cap will cause an increase in this fee and it might no longer be affordable and able to support small businesses. My suggestion would be to keep the pricing cap and to prevent control increase of prices. Regards Yashvi Paupiah

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Pricing changes in Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Ben Tasker April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

I am a domain name registrant, including names within .org > Pricing for Domain Name Registrations and Registry Services (Section 2.10 of the .org renewal agreement): While the stated aim of removing price caps appears to be to treat the Registry Operator "equitably with registry operators of new gTLDs" the reality is that the two are not the same. The Registry Operator of .org (and, for that matter .com etc) have the advantage of having an extremely large existing, captive audience, along with a well-known and memorable TLD. Legacy TLDs are fundamentally different to the new gTLDs. With gTLDs the approach of both ICANN and the Registry's has changed dramatically, but registrants of legacy TLDs expect (and I would argue are entitled to) stability in both price and approach. Although it seems an incredibly limited attempt has been made in regard to existing registrants, a quick reading of the terms suggests that existing registrants can still expect to see potentially large increases come renewal time. In many cases, those existing registrants are a captive audience, who've been using (and marketing) the same name for many, many years (in some cases, decades). ICAAN must recognise (and I'm sure PIR do) that those registrants are going to struggle to migrate to another TLD in response to price hikes. Recently registered Legacy TLDs were presumably registered on the basis of this ongoing stability. It's worth noting, too, that .org has a high number of non-profit entities within it's registered base, in part because it was originally reserved for them, so the user-base which is going to hit by unrestrained (by ICANNs contract) price increases includes quite a number of charities, amongst others. It's also noteworthy that the relaxation in pricing when the new gTLDs launched didn't actually end particularly well for users of those gTLDs. Many were tempted in with low introductory prices and then come renewal time saw significant increases in price. ICAAN's position in the internet means that it should be concerned with protecting registrants from harm and pricing abuse. I'm not sure that that's always the case, and this proposal does look very much like putting the commercial desires of a Registry first, at the severe detriment of the users of that TLD. The alternative is that, over time, .org will likely become as unpalatable and registrant hostile as some of the gTLDs already are. It's also likely that some of the sites currently sat within .org will simply be lost as registrants decide not to swallow the increased cost of keeping a historical curiosity online. .org has operated well enough with it's current structure until now, and I see no suggestion that PIR are in anyway not finding it a valuable commercial venture. Registrants should be protected and the pricing caps on .org retained. Thanks Ben -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk

1 0