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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] concern at removing .org domain price increase limits
by michael＠cryptograph.org April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Dear sirs, As a long-time registered owner of two .org domains used for hobbyist purposes, I am concerned about proposed changes to remove the ten percent per year price increase limits on .org domains. I understand that commercial domain, such as .com domains, can involve greater maintenance costs, and sometimes justify larger cost increases, but I wish to urge you to retain some limits on ability to increase .org domain costs on a yearly basis. Michael Jeffrey Brooks

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Niall Pithey 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, printing, storing, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or if you have received this email in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message. Unless specifically stated otherwise, nothing in this email is intended to serve as an electronic or digital signature.

1 0

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

April 29, 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, printing, storing, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or if you have received this email in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message. Unless specifically stated otherwise, nothing in this email is intended to serve as an electronic or digital signature.

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

Dear Sirs, 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! -- Regards, SP

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

I am a .org registrant (non-profit). 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. GlynnDevins represents many non-profits in the senior living industry. This certainly could have impacts to non-profits and the senior living industry, at larger. As an organization, we strongly oppose removing the price limitations and not protecting annual price increases that would get extremely expensive for non-profits. Sincerely, Carrie Mandelbaum Carrie Mandelbaum | Vice President, Digital Strategy & Inbound Marketing GLYNNDEVINS | SENIOR LIVING MARKETING SOLUTIONS [https://www.glynndevins.com/wp-content/uploads/branding/rgb/color-block/png…] Direct: 913.754.2368 | Mobile: 816.809.0313 8880 Ward Pkwy | Suite 400 | Kansas City | MO 64114 GlynnDevins.com<https://www.glynndevins.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=outlook> | Office: 913.491.0600 Check out our senior living marketing blog<http://www.glynndevins.com/blog?utm_medium=email&utm_source=outlook>. Proudly supporting WhereYouLiveMatters.org<http://www.whereyoulivematters.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=outlook>

1 0

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

April 29, 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! Ron Jackson

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

Hi there, 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? Best regards Pierluigi Buccioli <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed price cap removals
by Henderson, Mark W April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

The proposed uncapping of domain name registration pricing will have the effect of stifling innovation, favoring large businesses, and adding profit, not innovation or public good, to the greater community. Given the advances in processing and automation, domain name registration should now cost LESS than it did before, not more. So arguments for uncapping are purely profit motivated. Please leave Domain Name Registration price capped at $10 annually. --Mark Mark W. Henderson, Memory and Storage Product Marketing, Data Center Product Marketing, Data Center Group, Intel Corporation | Mark.W.Henderson(a)intel.com<mailto:Mark.W.Henderson@intel.com> |O: 503-264-8010 | C: 303-884-9187 | @SiliconStorage

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] My two cents
by Easton Ellsworth April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Don't gouge people and don't be unfair.

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

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.

1 0