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 -- <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_eliminati...> : "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, Dr. Benjamin Franske