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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please do not increase domain registry prices
by Matt Buckley April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Greetings, To keep barrier of entry as low as possible please do not increase the prices for domain registration. Thank you, Matt Buckley

1 0

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

April 25, 2019

Regarding (Section 2.10 of the .org renewal agreement): As a .org registrant, I oppose the removal of the price cap for .org domain renewal. I use my .org domain as a personal domain only providing absolutely no revenue whatsoever. Changing a TLD is mostly trivial, but the ripple effect is not. Since there is really no competition, I can only imagine significant price increases which I would be unable to sustain. At the very least please consider grandfathering the existing domains. David Watson "If price caps are eliminated, competition will not keep prices in check. Competition is effective in restraining prices only if registrants can easily switch one domain name for another. An organization's domain name becomes its online brand for the life of the organization. Moving to another domain name requires undergoing the hugely expensive and disruptive ordeal of rebranding and is to be avoided at nearly any cost. Organizations wish to continue using their existing domain name, for which there is no adequate substitute. When there is a unique product that cannot be easily substituted for any other, there is no effective competition. In the absence of competition, registrants can be protected from extortionate pricing only through pricing constraints, such as price caps. ICANN as the trustee for the legacy name spaces has the responsibility of an owner"

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please do not uncap .org domain fees
by Kemp Cease April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Please *do not remove the price cap* for .org domains. This TLD is widely used by organizations that cannot afford to engage in a bidding competition for these domains. After building brand awareness with a domain it would harm the public to have organizations loose their important domain names. Kemp Cease

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on Proposed Renewal of .org Registry agreement
by Leslie April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hello,I am writing to urge you to retract your proposal to eliminate price caps for .org domains. When ICANN accepted the responsibility from the US Dept of Commerce for private sector DNS Management (DNS Project), it committed to principles of Stability, Competition, and Representation of Internet users and their needs. Eliminating price caps goes against that commitment on all three principles. Stability: Literally countless users have established their Internet presence based on legacy pricing policies upon which they could rely for stable and predictable future pricing. These users would now face a highly disruptive after-the-fact policy change. You stated "the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with registry operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement.", but legacy operators made contractual agreements to their best judgement by the terms at that time; it is entirely unfair and destabilizing to allow those agreements to be radically changed after they were made. Competition: Removing price caps will not stimulate competition. On the contrary, it will remove pressure on new TLDs to remain competitive with legacy TLDs. Although this may well serve the financial interests of new Operators, it flagrantly renounces the DNS Project requirement (and commitment) to internet users needs. Representation: ICANN has been thus far in its history been admirable in supporting the diversity of internet users and their needs. Despite the vast proliferation of commercial use of the Internet, protections have thus far been maintained for global users whose presence in the global community is based on goals and intentions for the common good, well beyond commercial profit. Please continue to uphold the responsibility to support and foster all Internet users regardless of the strength of their commercial voice. Thank you for your consideration. Posted below are the principals as directly stated in ICANN's founding agreement in accepting DNS Management responsibility. Leslie Getty MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ANDINTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS 1999 C. The PrinciplesThe Parties will abide by the following principles: 1. StabilityThis Agreement promotes the stability of the Internet and allows the Parties to plan for a deliberate move from the existing structure to a private-sector structure without disruption to the functioning of the DNS. The Agreement calls for the design, development, and testing of a new management system that will not harm current functional operations. 2. CompetitionThis Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer choice in the technical management of the DNS. This competition will lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and satisfaction. 3. Private, Bottom-Up CoordinationThis Agreement is intended to result in the design, development, and testing of a private coordinating process that is flexible and able to move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of Internet users. This Agreement is intended to foster the development of a private sector management system that, as far as possible, reflects a system of bottom-up management. 4. RepresentationThis Agreement promotes the technical management of the DNS in a manner that reflects the global and functional diversity of Internet users and their needs. This Agreement is intended to promote the design, development, and testing of mechanisms to solicit public input, both domestic and international, into a private-sector decision making process. These mechanisms will promote the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the composition of the Internet user community and their needs.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Opposed to the changes proposed in the .org agreement renewal
by Michelle Schnitzius 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 â€˜bottom up, multi-stakeholder modelâ€™. 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] Comments objecting to the .org renewal
by info＠fbilacitizensacademy.org 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] No way no how!
by M K April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

This is bullshit. You want to put nonprofits at risk of excessive domain name costs!?? Check yoself! Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] price caps
by Jennifer Hutton April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I am against the proposal to remove price caps on top level domains. Jennifer Hutton Blue River-Kansas City Baptist Association 806 W. Main Street Greenwood, MO 64034 816-623-5360

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Submitting comments opposed to the proposed .org registry agreement
by Waqas Cheema April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

To whom it may concern: 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 Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Do not remove price caps for domains
by Leonard Law April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Removing the price cap will make it harder for individuals, students, and small businesses to get a web presence in this continually connected world. We need to keep the web an open place by keeping it financially accessible.

1 0