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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please don't PIR increase of 10% a year
by Christian Sepulveda April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Please keep the current policy of PIR cap of 10% on domain renewal. Many .org domains are for non profits. Without such a cap, costs can become prohibitive and problematic. Thanks Chris

1 0

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

April 25, 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.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Unacceptable : Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Chris April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

this renewal of the registry agreement is just not acceptable. You hold a monopoly on those domain, and there is no reason to raise price above inflation. Thank you for your consideration Chris

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] comments-org-renewal-18mar19
by Dave April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Please reconsider removing the price cap on .org domains. These have traditionally been used by non-profit organizations and other community groups, whose primary goals are not to make money, but to promote communication and solidarity among denizens of the www. These are groups who should be allowed to pursue their goals without economic hindrance, which removing the price caps would certainly create. David WhiteLos Angeles, CA

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please don't raise pricesdon't raise prices
by Jeri Anne Hampton April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

If Icann raises price limits it could cause financial stress for those of us who have simple websites for local announcements. Please don’t change price limits. Jeri Anne Hampton

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Possible Rate Hike
by icecreamqueen＠gmx.com April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Good Afternoon: I am a volunteer board member on the local non-profit museum of our town. I maintain the web site and pay for the registration myself to help out the museum. Recently, GoToMyPC raised the amount I was paying for the museum from $102 to over $400. A non-profit like ours can't afford rate hikes such as these. Please consider the burden on non-profits when you consider raising fees. Sincerely, Pam Barkas, Corresponding Secretary Monrovia Historical Museum Foundation, Inc. A 501(c) 3 Non-profit organization

1 0

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

April 25, 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] Feedback on the .org agreement
by Guy Greenwood April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I respectfully make the following comments. In addition to the financial burden to non profits; not limiting increases on .Org imposes a burden on private individuals and small business, individuals, and bloggers to register a single name with multiple extensions. This is specifically to ensure their site is not mistaken for another site, or if the owner wishes segregate different parts of their activity. My sister and brother-in-law, are self employed, with a catchey name specific to real estate and home loans. Because their website attracts customers, they registered .Com, .Net, and .Org. Using .Net and .Org, to redirect to .Com. website. I registered 3 legacy domains for similar reasons. My .Net is a family workgroup, .Com for a World Press site, and .Org. for a future litarary site to share and discuss public and unpublished litature. All domains share the name Azue-Ether. IBM likely won't be able to grab my .Com just because the word Azure, is a trade name for their cloud service, or an academic group trying to grab my .Org with its reference to Henry David Thoreau. Owning all 3 legacy domains, provides protection against litigation, and confusion owning all 3, with one or more in use. ICANN staff should prevent new .Org registration by 501-C3, similar organizations, government agencies, and overt political organizations. Renewal of current ones, should be allowed as a redirect to a .Com domain for 3 years, allowing sufficient time for them to find an appropriate .Com domain name. My former employer a public agency, used a .Org and thought it inappropriate. It should have been .Gov 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, those using as redirects, AND, those using for non- political use, it 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! Sincerely, Guy Greenwood Owner Domains: Azure-Ether.net Azure-Ether.com Azure-Ether.org Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

1 0

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

April 25, 2019

I am a .org registrant (not-for-profit). 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. <http://www.selectiveapathy.com> Regards, Sandeep Bappoo

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please be gentle with price proposals
by Simon Barbone April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hi I actively sought a .org domain as I wanted to recognise the difference from the .com world of commerce and trade. It feels substantially different, even if only in defining my space as not a corporate entity, though I could have had a .com for a similar price. I would hate to have to move to .com or similar in order to afford the cost of the domain, and it would mean changing a number of personalised accounts to support the change. Please remove the cost proposal to allow folk like myself to keep being engaged with the online world without having to tie down too intimately with its commercial aspects. Thanks! Simon Barbone

1 0