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

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

April 29, 2019

I am a .org registrant. Legacy gTLDs are a public trust, established as by government or quasi-government entities in the early days of the internet, with fundamentally different expectations from for-profit new gTLDs. The companies who maintain these registries are essentially hired to maintain the required recordkeeping for this public trust, in the manner of utilities. and should be treated that way, with significantly less independence than for-profit gTLDs established as private property. 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] Statement in opposition to .org domain changes
by Al Mithani April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

Hello, I am against having .org domains follow the same rules as the new TLDs, including allowing the registry to set prices arbitrarily. The .org TLD is now part of the fabric of the internet, and it should have a separate set of rules from the new TLDs. The registry for the .org domain is a steward of a public resource, and should not profit off of the value of the .org TLD which was created by the public. If the registry wants to arbitrarily set prices, it should create a new TLD - not take advantage of the history of the .org domain name. -Al Mithani

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

Hello, I am a .org registrant. I've read about a lot of bad decisions under the UDRP. The URS seems even worse. I heard that 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 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. Sincerely, Richard Dobson

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

I am a .org registrant (not-for-profit). 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. Sincerely, Julia Lord

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by T D 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. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

1 0

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

April 29, 2019

I am a domain name registrant, and I respectfully request that ICANN retain its existing pricing agreement for .org domains, and NOT implement the ability for PIR to raise prices without restriction. Rather than try to completely rephrase it, I offer selected passages from Zak Muscovitch's comment of Apr. 10, 2019, which highlight the main reasons behind my request: "So, other than conveniently "aligning" registry agreements to purportedly treat all registries alike despite their respective and dramatically different mandates, registrant base, and histories, what justification is there for unlimited price increases? There is no evidence whatsoever that the .org registry requires unlimited additional funds to maintain reliable operations. There is no evidence that the .org registry requires unlimited additional funds to finance the goods works of the Internet Society. There is no evidence that the .org registry needs unlimited funds in order to "compete" with other for-profit registries, particularly when the current operator, PIR, is a not-for-profit organization. In short, there is simply no justification for permitting the .org registry operator to raise prices at all, let alone with a sky-is-the-limit approach.... "The .org registry is simply too important to be permitted to be the subject of its operator's discretion, even if well meaning." Sincerely, Jonathan B. Harms

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Shaun Graham 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. <http://polymesh.nwcolor.com>

1 0

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

April 29, 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.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comments on Decision to Remove Price Caps on Legacy gLTDs
by Michael DeLong April 29, 2019

April 29, 2019

To whom it may concern, Attached are the comments of Mr. David A. Balto on the decision to remove price caps on legacy gTLDs. This is largely a competition question, as competition disciplines markets and protects consumers from monopoly prices. Market regulations, especially price regulations, are best used in markets in which there is “market failure” that market forces can not lead to a competitive result or in markets that tend towards natural monopolies. Mr. Balto does not believe this to be the case in the gTLD market. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael DeLong Law Offices of David Balto

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Hampton Moore 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!

1 0