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

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by muzirian April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I am a .org registrant (non-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.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Forest Schafer April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I am a .org registrant and assist multiple non-profits with websites. These organizations, like many others, are operating on extremely limited budgets and volunteer time. Often, one of their most valuable assets is their public trust reinforced by their presence on the web and undergirded by search rankings, web links and electronic points of contact. Creating unpredictability for these organizations is harmful to the public benefit mission of these organizations and erodes the fundamental promise of the internet as a force for good. For these reasons I strongly oppose the proposed changes that would eliminate price caps and treat legacy domains like new gTLDs. Forest Schafer 527 Cheney St, Reno, NV 89502 775-690-7506

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Request to keep existing price cap on .org domain name registration
by Subin Siby April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

Hi ! The proposal to remove price caps on .org domain names is unacceptable. It'll affect a lot of non profits including Wikipedia. I request ICANN to withdraw this proposal and keep the existing price cap. Thank you, Subin

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Please don't remove the cap on .org TLD pricing.
by Jay Bazuzi April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

Please don't remove the cap on .org TLD pricing. -Jay Bazuzi Bellevue, WA, USA

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Keir Davis April 27, 2019

April 27, 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. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] This is a terrible idea
by Nathan Barry April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

This is poorly thought out. Non-profit organizations often cannot afford increases, and they certainly cannot move to alternatives. Further, PIR exists only as an entity to sign the contract, they pass the entire actual running of the registry to one of the large incumbent for profit companies. They are not actually functioning as a public good focused organization, but rather a for profit Enterprise with tax exempt status. Maintain the price caps. Aside from regulation there is nothing to stop them making .org domains prohibitively expensive to small non profit organizations.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Paul Wicking April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I am a .org registrant (non-profit). 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? Paul W.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Bruce Fitzsimons April 27, 2019

April 27, 2019

I am a .org registrant (not-for-profit). 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 Taylor Brown April 27, 2019

April 27, 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. 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, meaning their brand and online identity will be essentially held hostage. This could result in a massive transfer of wealth from millions of non-profits to one non-profit, with no benefits to the domain registrants.

1 0

[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement
by Rob Engle April 27, 2019

April 27, 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. Rob Engle

1 0