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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] (no subject)
by Ahmet BENİZ April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I'm writing to ask ICANN to reconsider removing the registration fee caps on .org domains. These domains are used by nonprofit trade associations and individual member associations as well as tax-exempt charities. Windows 10 için Posta<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> ile gönderildi

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by hirenlalu April 27, 2019

April 27, 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 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 iPhone

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Lindsay Robertson April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I am a .org registrant (non-profit). 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. 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] (no subject)
by Sven COSNUAU April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

Hello, >From what i understand the cap on prices would be lifted. Except to decrease and raise to cover the costs of maintenance, domain names, and even more domain names for non profit should not be permitted to be unstable, simple, cover costs / benefits. Please do not allow this cap to be lifted, it's not helping. Domain names should be a commodity not a basic product put to market.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Pricing for Domain Name Registrations and Registry Services (Section 2.10 of the .org renewal agreement)
by Milen Nikolov April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

The price caps are there for a reason - instead of protecting the interest of the public - and the .org domain space is mainly used by organizations that one way or another serve public interest, your changes aim at enriching the pockets of select few, pretty much holding for ransom something that you have been entrusted with. This is despicable - if you are aiming at a market-driven approach to the governance of TLDs, then why pretend being a non-profit or something of that nature (PIR, for one, claims to be a non-profit)? There are TLDs which are already running at market prices, however, since the license to print money did not yield much (adoption is poor), you decided to drive that using good old mob mentality. Shame on you. Get educated on what and where market forces work well, and where they don't. And didn't even think about the digital divide, didn't you? Oh wait, you don't have a single economist among your staff?

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Aman Gupta April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I am a .org registrant (not-for-profit). 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] Comments on org renewals
by Srebalaji Thirumalai April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

ICANN About the .org domain renewals please consider the non profit organisations. Without them most of the services wont be available today and renewals of their domains aren’t their goal. And if the single company owns that monopoly, that wont be appropriate. The whole internet is for everyone and considered free. And ICANN plays a important role in that. So please dont give the a corporate a upper hand in this. Thank you

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Vikas Sharma April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I am a domain name registrant. I've read about a lot of bad decisions under the UDRP. The URS seems even worse. I heard the URS is very new and is being reviewed now to see if it is working properly. It is too soon to include an untested policy on .org domains where for a few hundred dollars anyone could try to shut down someone else's website. Telling the .org registry that it can charge any price it wants for renewing a domain name is a terrible idea. Why would you allow them to set a crazy high price? They could try to force the domain owners to pay a very high price each year to renew their domain name, and if the domain owner either won't or can't, then the .org registry could take away their domain name, set a high registration price on it, and then try to find someone else who is willing to pay a high price for it. This is very unfair to long time .org domain owners who may see their prices raised sky high for no reason. You let the new domain extensions charge any price they want, but that hasn't gone so well. Lots of people got burned when the new registries offered low rates for the first year, and then after people registered the domain names and some built web sites on them, some of the prices were raised through the roof. .Org has been working just fine for decades where the prices maybe go up a little bit each year. Allowing huge price increases from one year to the next could ruin .org for everybody. I think you should pay a little more attention to what is good for the owners of .org domain names. The registries are doing fine. They don't need your help as they are already making plenty of money.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Do not remove price caps on TLDs
by HB April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

Dear ICANN: I write in strong opposition to the removal of price caps (on .org, .biz., .info etc TLD's). I've had domains since 1999 or so and whiel initially prices came down as they should when technology matures and there are economies of scale, in the last 10 or so years prices have instead gone up, with retailers like GoDaddy and NameCheap forced to pass on higher prices given their thin margins. This is already outrageous. Prices have done up from 8 or so to 15+ per year. If you remove price caps this will only push costs even higher. How on Earth can you justify having things cost more (rather than less as they should) in 2019 than in the past -- things should be cheaper given economies of scale and better faster cheaper technologies and other tech improvements. Thank you, Harel Barzilai, Ph.D. Per call for comments at: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en?utm_source=…

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Objection to price cap removal
by Ian Hinder April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

Dear Sir or Madam, I object to the removal of price caps for the .org domain. Domain names are a public resource; they were not created by anyone, nobody owns them initially, and hence nobody deserves to be paid for them as such. A fixed price seems like the best way to charge for domain names, since the purpose of the charge is for *administrating* the allocation. There is no place for a market economy here. Further, specifically .org is often used by non-profits and other organisations who may well be run through volunteers in their free time. Forcing up the prices, as is inevitable from this change, will inhibit innovation and suppress the web presence of these organisations, and this is hardly in the interests of the public. -- Ian Hinder

1 0