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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Garcia98 April 28, 2019

April 28, 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] Please Reconsider Cost Increase for .org .biz .info Domains
by Kel Sysop April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

Here is a good example of fixing costs so that only the wealthy can pay for these services. Many of the sites that will be affected our non-profits... organizations that need to keep costs down to help those that need the most help. Also, I notice that this is affecting mostly the more utilized domains. In my opinion, this is yet another money grab that represents how little we, the consumers and small business mean to you. My question is: Where will it end? Should just big businesses have domains? From someone who has been in technology well before the Internet came to be for the masses, I can tell you that the Internet is for all, not just the wealthy or for large capital wealth. Increasing costs wont stop big businesses, but it will stop those who are trying to build them. Not what America is all about. Kel Fulgham

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] These proposed changes are terrible.
by Nathan Beals April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

These proposed changes are nothing more than a transparent money grab by ICANN, it's disgusting and ICANN should be ashamed of themselves. Many non-profit and charity organizations use the .org TLD, now ICANN wants to charge them tens of thousands of dollars more per year. Those thousands and thousands wasted on domain renewals could've been spent on any number of more helpful things, like clothes for the homeless, or books for children without books, etc. Instead, ICANN has decided that padding their pockets is more important. Shameful.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Mario Borna Mjertan April 28, 2019

April 28, 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, effectively creating an almost unregulated monopoly. 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] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Miro Lukkarinen April 28, 2019

April 28, 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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Jonathan Saewitz April 28, 2019

April 28, 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] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Ed Smith April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

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?

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Renewal increases
by Ciaran Connolly April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

Hi Team, I really do not agree with the cap being removed from the increased prices. The impact this could have on small business and entrepreneurs trying to move their business online could be massive – depending on where this all ends up. The domain is currently the affordable part of getting online – is it going to go like everything else. This will not impact large companies at all – but only hit the smaller businesses and individuals. We all know sadly how this will end...the cap is a great system to ensure that getting online is affordable for everyone. I genuinely do not think the current system should be changed - it works great! Why change it? Thanks Ciaran

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] .org comment
by Sean Reid April 28, 2019

April 28, 2019

I recently learned that the result of this renewal change may mean the increase in price for .org domains. As the maintainer of a .org website I would ask that you not make any changes to that would allow the price increase for this top level domain. The domain I maintain is a small but important neighborhood group without much of a budget and I suspect many other .org's are the same. Thank you, Sean Reid

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Leon Colijn April 28, 2019

April 28, 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. With kind regards, Leon Colijn Manager Engineering Exipa Engineering & Maintenance BV Tel. : +31 512 741 994 Mob : +31 6 31 245 296 leon.colijn(a)exipa.nl<mailto:leon.colijn@exipa.nl> [Logo exipa 2015 basis (10%)]

1 0