[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement

[Jim Anderson]

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?


I oppose the incorporation of the URS into the .org renewal agreement.

Legacy domain name extensions should NOT be treated the same as new gTLDs.

Removing price caps on .org is a bad idea.

ICANN should be looking out for the .org registrants, in particular the
non-profits.


Jim Anderson
janderson at remarkabledog.net