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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Removal of price caps
by Steven Jackson April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hello, I'd just like to register my concern about the removal of price caps on .org domains. I could really do without the added uncertainty of potentially large price increases on domains I've used for many years. Best Wishes, Steven Jackson CSDO Media Limited, registered in England No. 5071745. Registered Office Address: c/o SJD Accountancy, Floor A, Milburn House, Dean Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 1LE.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Potential for .org fee increases
by Lee Matchett April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I don't know exactly how this all works, but I agree with the previous comment I read: "The .org is generally construed as a charitable/non-profit/organizational domain, and thus the fees should reflect that. There needs to be firm pricing on all tld's to prevent profiteering and squatting". -Lee Matchett

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Regarding Section 2.10 of the .org renewal agreement
by Daniel Andrews April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Regarding section 2.10 of the .org renewal agreement, please do not remove the price cap on .org registrations. It is important to my internet business to maintain existing pricing cap of the .org TLD. Price increases beyond the existing limits will severely inhibit my ability to afford to keep my domain registrations, and consequently harm my internet business. Thank you for your time, Daniel Andrews

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Do Not Approve the .Org Agreement Renewal
by domains＠dimiti.com April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I am a .org 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 multi-stakeholder 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. Kind regards Stephen Sole

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please keep a cap on .org pricing
by Bill Crane April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Please keep the cap on of 10% increases on .org domains. Nonprofits have enough challenges without having to worry about domain names prices jumping. Thank you, Bill Bill Crane Executive Director Montana Shares PO Box 883 Helena, MT 59624 406.442.2218 www.montanashares.org bill(a)montanashares.org [image: MontanaSharesLogo 100W] at www.montanashares.org/give-now/ *We Promote Individual Philanthropy.* *Download our 2018/2019 Brochure at http://montanashares.org/montana-shares-brochure/ <http://montanashares.org/montana-shares-brochure/>* *Montana Shares is a partnership of Montana-based nonprofit groups devoted to improving the quality of life in communities throughout the state.*

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on the .org renewal terms
by Daniel Angell April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

As someone who has registered a few domains before, I don't want .org or other TLDs to move closer to the model of gTLDs. The 10% renewal fee cap should remain in place for .org. gTLDs were a mistake in the first place - we don't need to further capitalize on the pre-gTLD set. - Daniel Angell

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please don't increase domain registration/renewal fees
by Jerad McClure April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hi, Please don't increase domain registration/renewal fees. Thank you, Jerad McClure

1 0

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

April 25, 2019

Dear ICANN, I am implementing a free and open-source translator (with absolutely no external funding!) for my own programming language, and I am going to use a .org domain for the Web page as well as to mark a namespace for libraries (think, e.g., "import org.manool.std" in Java). Please do not raise the prices! Regards, --- Alexey Protasov (AKA rusini) https://sourceforge.net/projects/manool/ Registered domain: manool.org <alex(a)webprise.net>

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Opposed to the new .org agreement
by "M. Zafer Yahşi" April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

To whom it may concern: 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. Saygılarımla, With kind regards. M. Zafer Yahşi Consumer Engineer / Dev Engineer @ING Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment opposing proposed fee increases for TLDs
by ihpb110 April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

.org is the namespace for many nonprofits and NGOs. The very nature of these organizations is different to those that utilize .com domains (for example), who presumably have higher room to adjust for any significant price increases in their fees. The proposed fee hike, though intended to "better conform with the base registry agreement", may punish .org domain operators as an effect. Perhaps it is the base registry agreement that should be amended to cap fee raises at 10% annually for all TLDs, with exceptions made for domains that are frequently used by profitable organizations that operate in the markets. In deciding this, you should also consider the dangers of allowing rent-seeking behaviour. The internet is still a free and open place, and a lot of that starts with ICANN and the registries. Though the internet isn't a public utility, it has such a large impact on society that I believe it should be operated as one. This proposal doesn't run in the spirit of that, and I heavily oppose it.

1 0