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

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

April 26, 2019

Sirs, I am a domain name registrant. In fact, we are the registrant for more than 30 domains. 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] Please do not raise domain registration prices.
by James April 26, 2019

April 26, 2019

Please do not raise domain registration prices. James Thorstenson -- E#=K-c001n70-2347x6-Ho_Mai_2

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] This proposal is a betrayal of your prime mandate
by LSA April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

ICANN was created to protect public interest. It is now suggesting to allow unregulated prices in a non-competitive market. There is no competition for established domain names in .com Anybody who understands anything about how branding works can see this. An established organization cannot easily rebrand to another domain without great costs and even greater risks, because the perception of the public is based on the integrity of names. So there is no competition, moving to another domain extension is impossible… the public has spent decades now becoming aware of the risks of scammers that buy different extensions with the name of a trusted brand. To trust in the future goodwill of registrars is puerile… without contractual limitations, the temptation of increasing prices, where the buyer cannot move away and cease buying, is too great. If it can happen it will happen, and you even offer a set of fallacious justifications for it. And you are planning this move on non profits, which constitute the bigger slice of the .org extension. I hope you reconsider your plan. If it goes into effect, you will be responsible for jeopardising a vast majority of the organizations that strive to make the world better. And you will have done it in the name of greed. Sincerely, Luc Alexander

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Do Not Change .org Policy
by Jason April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hello: Please do not let the Public Interest Registry (PIR) increase the wholesale price of .org domains more than it can under its current contract. The .org domain is primarily for NGOs on limited budgets. Its considerate and ethical to respect that fact when pricing .org domains. Thank you. Jason Fuller

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Oppose lifting fee caps on domains
by David Menefee April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hello I am absolutely opposed to the elimination of fee caps on .org, .info and .asia domains. This is a blatant attempt by registrars to shut out small domain registrants, and is completely unnecessary. Thank you, Dave Menefee Hayfork, California, USA

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Matt Zitello April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Aloha, I am a .org registrant. 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? Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Price cap request
by TLC April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Please do not remove the price cap. This will create hardships on business and personal use domain names. Thank you

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comments on .org registry agreement.
by NS-Ayyy April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hello, I do not believe that allowing PIR to set any price for their domains would be good for the Internet. I think the current arrangement, allowing a 10% increase in price on the whosesale price of .org domains is reasonable. Given PIR's basis in the United States of America and the current average inflation rate for the US dollar of under 2% I believe the currents terms are perfectly adequate to ensure PIR's continued operation. Additionally, I believe that if PIR is given the unlimited ability to raise prices that many people and small organizations will be priced out of their ability to operate services on .org domains. PIR's mission statement includes the quote /'.org is for everyone' /but if they are able to suddenly raise prices I think they will do as such, pushing .org out of the reach of many people. Thank you for considering my comments. Sent via Migadu.com, world's easiest email hosting

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] (no subject)
by Leon Haralambus April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I do not agree with the proposed removal of price caps on the suggested domains (including but not limited to .org domains). This change seems predatory at best and will do nothing but cause all but convoluted and irregular domain names left to be bought at a normal price. This redistribution of domains to those with enough money will stifle communication and spread of information, the whole purpose of the internet. To summarize, this price increase directly goes against the internet's best interest and is NOT ok. Leon Haralambus

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by John Di Domenico April 25, 2019

April 25, 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