[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Comment on the proposed renewal of the .org registry agreement

Alex Tweedie alex.j.tweedie at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 13:25:50 UTC 2019

I respectfully make the following comments. 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/attachments/20190425/2b14205a/attachment.html>

More information about the Comments-org-renewal-18mar19 mailing list