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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Keep .org pricing low - don't raise
by Matt Vaughan April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hello, I work with two non-profit organizations. I highly recommend that ICANN not allow PIR to raise pricing on .org domain registrations. The proposed agreement with PIR represents the kind of free-for-all pricing that could diminish the effectiveness of ICANN. Please retain the current pricing agreement to cap domain renewals at 10% increases. Thank you. Matt Vaughan

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please do not remove price caps on legacy TLDs
by Junaid April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I am a .org registrant. I bought it to make it part of my non-profile organization as many people done already. Removing its price, which most non-profits use, is totally unacceptable. ~ Junaid

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed changes to .org registry agreement
by Robert Lowe April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Hello, My organization is extremely concerned by the proposal to eliminate the existing caps on price for .org domain registrations as part of the renewed agreement between ICANN and Public Interest Registry. Like our peers in the for-profit sector, nonprofit organizations have long had business models that are highly dependent upon websites that are already a source of considerable expense for many small-budget nonprofits in particular. The prospect of potentially having to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars annually for domain name registrations that have hitherto been priced at a much more affordable level is unnerving, to say the least. Nonprofit organizations will be far more challenged to absorb arbitrary and potentially large price increases in domain name registration costs than for-profit organizations which have the option of passing such costs on to their customers in various ways. Extracting rents from the nonprofit sector in the guise of an agreement that "takes into consideration the maturation of the domain name market and the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with registry operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement" is not a progressive or responsible policy. We strongly urge ICANN to retain the existing policy of capping the allowable prices and annual price increases for .org registrations. Regards, Robert R. Lowe Chief Operating Officer American Society on Aging 575 Market Street | Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94105-2869 o 415-974-9624 | c 415-706-2607 www.asaging.org ASA membership information | www.asaging.org/join<http://www.asaging.org/join> Aging in America Conference | www.asaging.org/aia

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Do not eliminate price caps on legacy domains!
by Marc Z April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

The following article details the potential harm this will do to existing legacy domain holders. Please don't eliminate price caps on legacy domains! The Spurious Justifications for Eliminating Price Caps on .org and Other Legacy Domains By Nat Cohen http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_eliminat…

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on Potential Renewal Prices
by Ian Fry April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Our .org sited organization does philanthropic work in rural Zimbabwe, a really poor area. A price increase would limit the resources that can be used to actually help people. Every dollar a company gets for .org sites like ours actually decreases the good happening in the world. A profit is already being made, why does it make sense to put a limitless increase on the negotiating party. We wouldn’t be pleased or believe ICANN is serving humanity well if this goes through. Sincerely, Ian Fry Eden Ministries Inc.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Feedback on the .org agreement
by Brendan April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Dear ICANN, 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. Regards, Brendan

1 0

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

April 25, 2019

Dear Sirs and Madams: I am a .org registrant and a not-for-profit or non-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! Thanks for considering my opinion.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comments objecting to the .org renewal
by Web Solutions Lanka April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Dear ICANN, 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 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. Sent from my Huawei Mobile

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] I am a domain name registrant.
by Limitless Latoya April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I am a domain name 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! Respectfully, Latoya Clark

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] The proposed .org agreement is a bad idea
by RoberT JoneS April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Dear ICANN, Please don't do this . 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? RoberT JoneS

1 0