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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Statement of denouncement : Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement.
by Fon Noel April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I am writing, to add my voice to possible many, that eventhough a new agreement must be made, we donot support any form of such an agreement that would give any party unfair advantages, that inturn has the possibility to jeopardize the ownership of several online properties (.org domains) currently held. We demand, that a situation that may be lead to a mad rush/run should not be considered as an option. F. E. Noel NFEBE

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] This should not be allowed.
by Wajdan Khan April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I write to oppose the removal of price caps on any of the “legacy” TLDs as doing so will allow registries to charge huge amount of fees for doing nothing other than pointing DNS. Today .org registry is doing this and others will follow soon. And I strongly oppose this decision. Wajdan Ali Khan Admestic.org Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] .org Comment
by Johny Volodzskis 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! Thanks Johny

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on proposed changes to the .org registry agreement
by Ari Zilnik 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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on proposed changes to the .org registry agreement
by alo0 April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment. 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] .org domain costs
by Leora Weitzman April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I am a small business owner (sole proprietor, no employees). My website, backinharmony.org, is a crucial part of how I connect with clients. Low-cost website and email marketing have been an essential part of my growth since shortly after I started out in 2007. My overhead is about 1/3 of my gross income, which means I contribute to the economy through the supplies and services my business uses. It also means I need to watch each expense closely. A significant increase in the cost for my website domain could destabilize my business. I would seriously consider getting by without a website, which would damage my business, even though I have a strong word-of-mouth following. If I kept the website while paying significantly more, the quality or quantity of my services would have to suffer in some way, such as older/more worn-out/less functional supplies. Removing the cap on domain costs discriminates against small businesses like mine. By threatening small businesses, it undermines the freedom that our nation was designed to support. I work very hard to keep my business going. I love it, and would much rather work hard for myself than work for someone else. There is a dignity and freedom about self-employment that is of great value, and is vulnerable when essential costs spike. Please consider this as you deliberate on removing the domain price cap. Thank you for reading this. Leora Weitzman, PhD, LMT, RYT® Back in Harmony

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] .ORG renewal fee increases
by Steve Midgley April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I believe it us unfair to allow unlimited / market based fee increases for .ORG domains specifically. This TLD has existed since very early in the NS history, and is a vital component for many nonprofit organizations and their online presence. These types of organizations are more vulnerable to price changes - .ORG TLD prices should be controlled to protect these public service organizations. Please consider your plan to allow market pricing for .ORG. For other domains, this seems reasonable, but this specific TLD should be protected. Sincerely Stephen Midgley Berkeley CA

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Against price increase for .org domain
by Sam Kim April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Against price increase for .org domain Please don't.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on proposed changes to the .org registry agreement
by Bruno Cancellieri April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I respectfully make the following comments. I am a .org registrant and a not-for-profit organization. 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! Best regards, Bruno Cancellieri

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Do Not Lift Limits
by Mitchum Owen April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Nonprofits are the most likely to use .org accounts. Please let these organizations continue to operate without the undue burden of needlessly-high website operating costs. -- Mitchum Owen mitchum.owen(a)milodigital.com <mailto:mitchum.owen@milodigital.com> | w: 805.518.1782 milodigital.com <http://milodigital.com/> | PO Box 199, Harbor City, CA 90710

1 0