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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] price cap
by David Borden April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Allowing a monopoly by contract vendor to charge anything it wants is textbook economic lunacy. If it's true that's in the renewal proposal, PLEASE send it back to the drawing board. It's an entirely inappropriate economic framework. - David Borden, domain registrant

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] The proposed .org agreement will hurt public institutions
by Elaine Simon April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I am a .org registrant and a not-for-profit or non-profit organization. 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. *Elaine Simon* Director of DevOps Hawaii Technology Academy Cell: (808) 398-3923 [image: Twitter Icon.jpg] <https://twitter.com/HTAcharter> [image: Insta Icon.jpg] <https://www.instagram.com/htacharter/> [image: FB Icon.jpg] <https://www.facebook.com/hawaiitechnologyacademyHTA> [image: YouTube Icon.jpg] <https://www.youtube.com/c/HawaiiTechnologyAcademyHTA> [image: Google+.png] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112079144582928703127/+MyhtaOrg> myhta.org <https://hi.myhta.org/> -- *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This email message may contain information which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think you have received this message in error, please email the sender then delete the email from your computer system and destroy any hard copies of the email. If you are not the intended recipient any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.*

1 0

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

April 25, 2019

Dear ICANN, 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? Wendell Ricketts --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] .org price cap
by Carey April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Re: "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." The .org domains are used primarily by non-profit organizations which depend on limited and predictable increases in operating costs. Removing the price cap removes that predictability, posing a threat to future web domain use by non-profits.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] proposed ICANN increase
by Fossil News April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Dear People: As a tiny business, I depend on my web presence for most of my marketing and publicity. At this point, between domain registration, hosting, and other expenses, I'm already spending upwards of $160 a year on one single site - my .org domain. The possibility of removing caps/price limitations on fees is terrifying to me. I'm asking that you take action to make sure consumers and small-business people like me aren't priced out of the business. Thank you. Wendell Ricketts ____________________________________________________________ Wendell Ricketts Editor & Publisher Fossil News: The Journal of Avocational Paleontology FossilNews.org | @Fossil_News --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Opposed to the new .org agreement
by Alyn Smithee April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

To whom it may concern: 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] The proposed .org agreement will hurt nonprofits and charities
by Elaine Simon April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

I am a .org registrant and a not-for-profit or non-profit organization. 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] Opposed to the new .org agreement
by Xandor Schiefer April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 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. - -- Kind regards, Xandor Schiefer +27 79 706 5620 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEeuBHUEYOsdgyOk0YEu8EQzPz0dEFAlzB5PsACgkQEu8EQzPz 0dGcnQf+LONYAJBCtGbgWGcX+EE5+EMkAYa8FjFoEzilWFfBqOk/EGu44oWvSRv1 sww5druyTP/UHaCBSGZeoNJqShGQtpfhphchjZnxIqkr8VTsP+9BRYPzkx102fYE gaXgHyYN8fsyCcOxfbT+jaFx5iR8rJCLPqULrLQ2A3br1fIUIWcgJdEIfs9HSlAy CIy3ZrUOg6sdgzxQVXI+YYjfdBCK+ydLjN0kRmkC33NdLXhkITceAW9IJ5g/TrGi XykrxWYivdOKYqDguqIUVPYCiUFbx1ezo9d7dwpm4JV9tWVPvJdk36CPG10djfK1 IcWk7lB7kaVuWigqdRtVZxllLOEF4A== =FmmI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Prices
by Endwise April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Please do not remove the price cap on .ORG domains... It's hard enough as it is to start a business.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Price increase for .org
by Varen Swaab April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Please do not submit to pressure to allow .org prices to be raised. It is not in the public’s best interest. Thank you, Varen Swaab

1 0