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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Paul Dutton April 29, 2019

April 29, 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 which 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 of price caps continuing 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! Sincerely, Paul Dutton Toronto, Ontario Canada

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Ben April 29, 2019

April 29, 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.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by info April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am a domain name 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? Kindly reconsider your intended action. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by MI April 29, 2019

April 29, 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!

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Lifeboat Foundation Administration April 29, 2019

April 29, 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.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by mwaldo April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Greetings, I am a .org registrant. I would like to comment on the ICANN Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement. The internet, and specifically the broad, public-based sector that uses the .org space, has grown and prospered with just a few basic rules and conditions since this technological great leap forward over forty years ago. It provides a valuable resource to all and constricting access to .org domains and making this aspect of domain maintenance susceptible to unbridled cost increases acts to diminish and possibly even destroy this segment of the internet terrain. The technology and resources needed to maintain the entire registry cannot be so complex and expensive, in these days of powerful computing systems, artificial intelligence and other advances, that unlimited and uncontrolled pricing is necessary or justifiable. So the question is, what purpose does such a policy address? If, as it appears, this change would only encumber and present barriers to domain owners then by all means it should be blocked. Operational costs should be evaluated and reduced using available technology instead of allowing arbitrary and uncontrolled pricing models. Thank you for considering this comment. Mike Waldorff Domain Administrator WatSacramento.org

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Yoav Daniel Bar-Ness April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am a .org registrant. Please retain the .org, .info, and .biz price caps. 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? [image: Outreach Ecology] Yoav Daniel Bar-Ness tel: + 61 468 360 320 <+%2061%20468%20360%20320> online: www.outreachecology.com online: www.giant-trees.com online: www.tasmaniangeographic.com

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] I am writing to oppose the price cap lift for .org domains.
by Sarb Panesar April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I am writing to oppose the price cap lift for .org domains. Please do not go ahead with it. Mr Panesar.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Removal of price increase cap
by Hendrik Stefanus Coetzee April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Removing the price increase cap on "legacy TLDs" at this time, seems like it would be likely to be detrimental to competion in the market. Does ICANN perhaps have any economic research that indicates otherwise? If not, I would suggest this part of the proposed change be reconsidered. Best regards, Hendrik Coetzee, concerned Internet user.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] (no subject)
by Brandon Haworth April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

As a .org registrant, board member, and officer of a non profit, unrestrained price caps would put pressure and risk on our group. A non-profit's budget simply can not handle unpredictable increases in costs for services as fundamental as domain name registration.

1 0