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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Uncapping .org pricing
by William Hunter April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Everyone else's comments have plenty of carefully thought out arguments, so this one is merely raw emotion. JUST. STOP. Never thought I would support transferring domain registry away from the US but ICANN is making me question whether we are responsible enough here to deserve this authority. It's hard to see the proposed changes as anything more than a cash grab by profiteers who see an opportunity to plunder the commons.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] EFF and DNRC Oppose the Addition of Censorship-Promoting Terms to the .ORG Registry Agreement
by Mitch Stoltz April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Domain Name Rights Coalition submit the following comments on the renewal of the .org Registry Agreement between ICANN and Public Interest Registry (PIR). As organizations that promote freedom of expression, oppose censorship, and pursue sound governance of the Internet, we have serious concerns about many of the proposed changes to the Agreement, particularly 1) the imposition of “Rights Protection Mechanisms” on the .org top-level domain; 2) permitting Public Interest Registry to develop new and open-ended “Rights Protection Mechanisms;” and 3) applying the improperly created “Public Interest Commitments” to the .org TLD in a manner that will permit PIR to regulate and censor Internet content. *1.**Trademark Claims and URS Are Unnecessary and Harmful in the .org TLD* The Trademark Claims Notices and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) were developed by the ICANN community specifically for the new generic top-level domains. They were developed to address the concerns of some trademark holders that the creation of many new gTLDs would lead to a wave of cybersquatting on domain names that could not be addressed by the existing Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP). That wave has largely failed to materialize, and the efficacy of Trademark Claims and URS is currently under review by the ICANN community. Procedurally, it is inappropriate for the ICANN organization to impose these mechanisms on .org, a legacy TLD that dates from the earliest days of the domain name system. Such a move must come, if at all, from the ICANN community after an evidence-based discussion. ICANN staff have presented no evidence of any need for Trademark Claims and URS in the .org TLD. In fact, the only rationale stated in the proposal is “to better conform with the base registry agreement.” https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en. This is not a sufficient or even rational justification, given the significant differences between the .org TLD and the new gTLDs. The .org TLD, by long-established norm, is home to millions of nonprofit organizations of all kinds. The new gTLDs are less used, and are primarily marketed to commercial users. ICANN’s principles of multistakeholder evidence-based policymaking require that a change this significant come, if at all, from the community, not from bilateral discussion between ICANN staff and Public Interest Registry. Substantively, Trademark Claims and URS are inappropriate for the .org TLD. The Working Group for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms has uncovered substantial evidence that Trademark Claims Notices received by people who seek to register a domain name tend to deter registrations that would not infringe a trademark or otherwise invade the legitimate rights of a trademark holder. Claims Notices, which warn of the possibility of infringement, can be misleading for non-commercial users, because non-commercial use of a word or phrase is not trademark infringement as a matter of law. Because the .org TLD is used primarily by nonprofit organizations engaged in a variety of charitable, educational, religious, scientific, and public interest activities, their uses of a domain name are far more likely to be noncommercial, and thus outside any exclusive right of a trademark holder. Warning noncommercial users to avoid registering a domain name because of the possibility of trademark infringement is similar to warning residents of tropical climates to wear heavy coats because of the possibility of snowstorms. Both warnings, applied in the wrong context, would cause more harm than they prevent. ** *2.**Any New RPMs for .org Must Be Developed by the ICANN Community, Not Imposed Unilaterally By Public Interest Registry* ** The proposed new Registry Agreement would also allow Public Interest Registry “to develop additional rights protection mechanisms” unilaterally. Experience in the new gTLDs has shown this to be a dangerous proposition. So-called rights protection mechanisms are, at best, compromises between trademark holders’ interest in enforcement and the broader public’s right to register and use domain names as a vital avenue of free expression. As such, they implicate public and private rights that may not line up with a single registry operator’s priorities. Some new gTLD registry operators have used the unilateral ability to create new rights protection mechanisms to institute mechanisms that were considered and rejected by the ICANN community as insufficiently protective of free speech rights. For example, registry operator Donuts enforces “Domain Protected Marks List” and “DPML Plus” policies that allow trademark holders to withdraw a name from use by others across hundreds of gTLDs, thus interfering with millions of potential non-infringing uses of those names by others. ICANN should not permit Public Interest Registry to impose its judgment about the proper balance of public and private rights in domain names upon millions of non-profit organizations by fiat, bypassing community input. *3.**The Public Interest Commitments Impermissibly Invite Regulation of Internet Speech and Content* ** The so-called “Public Interest Commitments” are a set of requirements that were added to Registry Agreements for the new top-level domains. They were created and imposed by ICANN staff without community input. They purport to impose a general obligation on registries and registrars to regulate the contents of websites and Internet applications to prevent “copyright infringement,” “deceptive practices,”or other “activity contrary to applicable law,” and to “provid[e] consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name.” These provisions, in effect, repurpose the domain name system from a global system of unique identifiers for information resources to a global regulator of speech in which Internet users around the world must conform to a vague, inconsistent set of national laws, interpreted and enforced by numerous private corporations, or risk losing their domain names. And they run directly counter to ICANN’s mission statement, which states that “ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide.” https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1. The mandatory and voluntary “Public Interest Commitments” are already being used to justify registry-imposed censorship of Internet content in the new gTLDs. They are utterly inappropriate for the legacy TLDs, especially .org, and the special circumstances of millions of domain names registered to organizations dedicated to free expression and engaged in lawful critique, including critique of companies and their products, services and practices. ** *4.**Deletions to .Org Renewal Agreements* Accordingly, and in direct support of the issues and concerns expressed above, EFF and DNRC call for the deletion of the following provisions of the .org renewal agreement.We note that none of the contractual terms listed below were ever discussed or intended to be applied to legacy TLDs when reviewed and negotiated in 2009 and 2010.Inclusion of these contractual terms, without GNSO discussion, review and agreement of their application to legacy TLDs in general and .org in particular would be disastrous to noncommercial speech online and to the multistakeholder process. *_Deletions necessary to address the concerns raised above: _* *Section 2.8*: Protection of Legal Rights of Third Parties *Section 2.17*: Additional Public Interest Commitments *Specification 7: *Minimum Requirements for Rights Protection Mechanisms *Specification 11*: Public Interest Commitments *Any other *oral or written agreements between ICANN and Public Interest Registry that allow rights protection mechanisms outside of those explicitly approved by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for legacy TLDs, such as UDRP

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] (no subject)
by +17738055032＠tmomail.net April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

I oppose the price increase proposed by icann. Not too long ago many of us supported the transition of icann away from the government with the hopes icann would be fair and incorruptible. Unfortunately this proposal is detrimental to the majority of people and non profits. I hope that the board would do the right thing and vote against the price increases. The internet must be protected and icann has been given the responsibility.

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

Dear ICANN: I am a domain name registrant of many domains including .org domains both for myself and on behalf of 501(c)-3 and not-for-profit organizations. Legacy gTLDs are fundamentally different from the new for-profit 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 from the new gTLDs which were created, bought, and paid for by private parties. Registrants of these legacy extensions should be entitled to price predictability and 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 all .org registrants and 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 too much power to the registry. This is not acceptable for a "public benefit" organization that exists to represent many stakeholders. Sincerely, James Fontaine

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] INTA Comments
by Lori Schulman April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Attached please find INTA's comments. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 700 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org<http://www.inta.org/> [2019_AM_Boston_register (003)] Find us on: [Description: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA8566DC2514] Twitter<https://twitter.com/INTA> [Description: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=69899> [Description: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/GoINTA?ref=ts> [Description: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

1 0

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

April 29, 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] don't make domains for the 1%
by Burt Culver April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Please do not change the domain pricing policy for .org domains. Allowing the prices of domains to increase dramatically whill mean that non-profits and small .orgs will struggle to pay for their domain names and will eventually be priced off the internet. Regards, Burt Burt Culver Los Angeles, CA

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Removal of .org price cap
by Richard Posey April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

My startup non-profit holds a number of .ORG domain names that fit its long-term or potential long-term plans. To remove the cap on .ORG domains increases uncertainty and creates a potential burden that could be a hardship for a currently self-funded non-profit organization. I can only speak for myself, but no non-profit wants additional costs, and worse, more uncertainty. I am against removing the cap on .ORG domains. Thank you, Richard Posey 202-681-2387 Talent for Hire (.org) Corporation a 501(c)(3) corporation registered as a charity in the State of Washington.

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

I am a .org registrant -- my .org domain is used as the home base of a not-for-profit open source software project. There is literally $0 budget and as the founding author of the project I pay the bill myself. It seems like a terrible idea to lift caps on registration fees for the original TLDs, especially .org which is so heavily used by non-profit groups. Surely this will result in exorbitant fees that these groups cannot afford, if these legacy TLDs go the way of the rest of the for-extreme-profit internet. ICANN should preserve .org as a digital commons that remains guaranteed to be affordable for non-profit organizations, as well as a living example of what the entire internet was like before the land-grab days began. -- Larry Gritz lg(a)openimageio.org

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Uncapping Price Seems Like A Bad Idea
by John David Pressman April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

>*Pricing for Domain Name Registrations and Registry Services (Section 2.10 of the .org renewal agreement):* In alignment with the base registry agreement, the price cap provisions in the current .org agreement, which limited the price of registrations and allowable price increases for registrations, are removed from the .org renewal agreement. Protections for existing registrants will remain in place, in line with the base registry agreement. This change will not only allow the .org renewal agreement to better conform with the base registry agreement, but also 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 I must admit I find this provision concerning. TLD operators have a monopoly, and for legacy TLD's especially the demand is high since users are most familiar with them. If applied as precedent to all legacy TLD's, I could easily see it becoming more expensive for individuals to run their own websites. It could even become prohibitively expensive, as these namespaces are in demand and it's not clear to me the "fair price" a monopoly can charge for a .com isn't $100.

1 0