<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I'm a multiple .org registrant with not-for-profit websites. <br>
</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Continued No-bid monopoly control of legacy TLDs is a key issue. The present system granting no-bid contracts
undermines the public interest and contaminates commercial relations. This system
invites corruption, and does a disservice to people working for the public interest. Transparency & fairness
demand competition. ICANN should require competitive contracts which demand high performance, explicitly penalize failure, and guarantee (lower) retail
pricing.</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">E<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></span>veryone at ICANN<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"> and key constituents</span> already<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></span> know l</span>egacy TLDs are fundamentally different from new gTLDs<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">. Is this process thus an empty exercise? Is this process an attempt to reposition legacy TLDs to further benefit the present contract holders? We should not rubber-stamp existing opaque relationships.</span>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I oppose bringing the URS into the .org renewal agreement. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Aloha & Very Best Wishes,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Bruce Lambert<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Stockholm, Sweden<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div></div></div></div>