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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] I oppose this
by Taras Shemchuk April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

I do not support the removal of the price cap provisions from the renewal of the.org gTLD agreement. These provisions which limited the price of registrations and allowable price increases for registrations, are important to allowing small organizations, especially non-profit charity organizations to exist on the Internet. Many of these organizations have long-held.org domain names and a substantial percentage of their meager funding is tied to donors being able to find them via those domains. The massive potential price increases (as opposed to the moderate ones that are already possible) would prohibit smaller organizations and personal projects from having a place on the Internet. Let me be clear, there is no inherent 'worth' to domain names and no registry 'deserves' to profit from the sale of domain names. These are in infinite supply and simply a ledger entry. They are not a product where the registry provides any innovation nor are they a product which costs any substantial amount of money to produce. The costs of domain registration must ONLY cover the costs of administering said registry which are very minor costs given the automation level possible. While I understand that legacy gTLD providers are upset that they are limited in what they can charge when newer TLD providers are not they do have a distinct advantage of being more recognizable and are thus more than making up for it in volume. The greed of gTLD providers should not be a reason to allow unreasonable price increases. If a legacy gTLD provider does not feel they can cover their costs in a price-capped arrangement we should instead seek out a new provider for the gTLD. I'm certain that there are many organizations who would be more than happy to take over the oversight of these legacy gTLDs while still agreeing to the price caps. Indeed I would support a reverse-auction of qualified bidders for all legacy gTLDs where the winner would be the organization which would guarantee the lowest price for registrations. THIS competition would best serve the users of the Internet, not the opposite which is to remove price caps. Let me quote from an excellent article on this subject which well explains why competition is a false idea in this marketplace -- : "If price caps are eliminated, competition will not keep prices in check. Competition is effective in restraining prices only if registrants can easily switch one domain name for another. An organization's domain name becomes its online brand for the life of the organization. Moving to another domain name requires undergoing the hugely expensive and disruptive ordeal of rebranding and is to be avoided at nearly any cost. Organizations wish to continue using their existing domain name, for which there is no adequate substitute. When there is a unique product that cannot be easily substituted for any other, there is no effective competition. In the absence of competition, registrants can be protected from extortionate pricing only through pricing constraints, such as price caps. ICANN as the trustee for the legacy name spaces has the responsibility of an owner" Sincerely, Taras Shemchuk

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Clara Robin April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

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] Renewal Fees for .org
by Dave Sewhuk April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

I oppose the measure to allow unlimited increase in fees. There are may non-for-profit organizations and individual family accounts using this domain. A sharp increase in renewal maybe a hardship for some organizations. -- * 01011001011011110111010101110010011100110010000001000111011001010110010101101011011011000111100100101100 Dave Sewhuk*Bugs ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on Proposed Changes to .org Registry
by Scott C. Kennedy April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

As a long time .org registered domain, I am very opposed to the proposed changes to the renewal fees associated with the .org TLD. To remove the annual cap entirely is a dangerous idea since the domains that have spent years building the value for their domain names. If the tld registry needs to increase the cap, that is a different idea. But to remove it entirely is a very bad idea.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] .ORG price increase caps
by Halloran, Robert K April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

The proposal to permit unlimited fee increases on .ORG domains will substantially impact small non-profits, family or personal domains, and act as a chilling effect on Internet participation. I presently hold hallorans.org as a family domain to facilitate a common mail domain for my (now-grown) children to allow for a 'portable' mail address across ISPs or mail providers. The cost of this has been negligible over the years, but a precipitous jump would force me to reconsider this. For non-profits and NGOs, many operating on thin margins, it may mean the difference between Net accessibility or not. I urge ICANN to maintain the present cap on annual increases to prevent throttling access to the Internet for those groups least able to absorb increases. Robert K Halloran Jacksonville FL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] org gTLD renewal
by Scott Hazen Mueller April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

Hello - I am writing in regard to the org gTLD renewal proposal, specifically with regard to the proposal to remove the fee cap. I am the holder of an org domain registered in 1989, SF-Bay.ORG. I oppose the removal of the fee cap. Since the org domain registry is non-competitive, and the actual service provided is trivial, removing the cap simply allows the registry provider to select an arbitrary profit margin in providing a service to a captive market. The fee cap should only be removed if market competition is in place throughout the entire service stack - that is, it is made possible to register a domain in the org gTLD via an alternate registry - or if ICANN moves the org gTLD registry service to the lowest-cost provider on a regular basis.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] .org renewal agreement - Public Comments
by Jeffrey L. Chalkley April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

I do not support the removal of the price cap provisions from the renewal of the .org gTLD agreement. These provisions which limited the price of registrations and allowable price increases for registrations, are important to allowing small organizations, especially non-profit organizations to exist on the Internet. Many of these organizations have long-held .org domain names and a substantial percentage of their meager funding is tied to donors being able to find them via those domains. The massive potential price increases (as opposed to the moderate ones that are already possible) would prohibit smaller organizations like mine (the Indiana High School Swimming and Diving Hall of Fame: ihssdhof.org) from having a place on the Internet. Let me be clear, there is no inherent 'worth' to domain names and no registry 'deserves' to profit from the sale of domain names. These are in infinite supply and simply a ledger entry. They are not a product where the registry provides any innovation nor are they a product which costs any substantial amount of money to produce. The costs of domain registration must ONLY cover the costs of administering said registry which are very minor costs given the automation level possible. While I understand that legacy gTLD providers are upset that they are limited in what they can charge when newer TLD providers are not they do have a distinct advantage of being more recognizable and are thus more than making up for it in volume. The greed of gTLD providers should not be a reason to allow unreasonable price increases. If a legacy gTLD provider does not feel they can cover their costs in a price-capped arrangement we should instead seek out a new provider for the gTLD. I'm certain that there are many organizations who would be more than happy to take over the oversight of these legacy gTLDs while still agreeing to the price caps. Indeed I would support a reverse-auction of qualified bidders for all legacy gTLDs where the winner would be the organization which would guarantee the lowest price for registrations. THIS competition would best serve the users of the Internet, not the opposite which is to remove price caps. Let me quote from an excellent article on this subject which well explains why competition is a false idea in this marketplace -- : "If price caps are eliminated, competition will not keep prices in check. Competition is effective in restraining prices only if registrants can easily switch one domain name for another. An organization's domain name becomes its online brand for the life of the organization. Moving to another domain name requires undergoing the hugely expensive and disruptive ordeal of rebranding and is to be avoided at nearly any cost. Organizations wish to continue using their existing domain name, for which there is no adequate substitute. When there is a unique product that cannot be easily substituted for any other, there is no effective competition. In the absence of competition, registrants can be protected from extortionate pricing only through pricing constraints, such as price caps. ICANN as the trustee for the legacy name spaces has the responsibility of an owner" Sincerely, Jeffrey Chalkley

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Feedback on the Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Steven Sun April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

"ICANN is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable." I do not understand how ICANN can achieve the above while allowing unrestrained price increases on millions of domain names, I am objecting the proposal of removing the price cap provisions in the current .org agreement. Instead, ICANN should actively seeking new providers who can lower the cost of the .org domain names and award the agreement to a winning bidder, for the public's benefit. An open, fair and competitive process should be taken to procure the .org domain name operator before renewing any agreement.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Chris Raters April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

As a holder of a single .org domain name, I do not support the removal of the price cap provisions from the renewal of the .org gTLD agreement. These provisions which limited the price of registrations and allowable price increases for registrations, are important to allowing small organizations, especially non-profit charity organizations to exist on the Internet. Many of these organizations have long-held .org domain names and a substantial percentage of their meager funding is tied to donors being able to find them via those domains. The massive potential price increases (as opposed to the moderate ones that are already possible) would prohibit smaller organizations and personal projects from having a place on the Internet. This is an anti-competitive practice aimed squarely at eliminating smaller organizations and non-profits from having a presence on the Internet.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comments
by zelse - April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

I OPPOSE any removal for the 10%/annum price increase. .ORG, .NET and .COM are accorded a certain level of legitimacy by being the oldest non-country TLDs which are open to registration by all members of the public. They are intended to support the open nature of the internet as a platform - political, social, and entrepreneurial. Removing this cap will allow Verisign to freely price smaller entrants out of the market in favour of larger companies which can afford to pay more for the perceived legitimacy of a .ORG address. Verisign would have ample incentive to charge as much as the market will bear, running contrary to ICANN's neutral purpose for existing. Generic TLDs must remain affordable, and this is particularly the case for charitable organizations and non-profits -- exactly the people .ORG is meant to serve. Yours, Art McLeod

1 0