[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] The proposed .org agreement is a bad idea
Larry Arbanas (g)
larry at arbanas.org
Thu Apr 25 14:01:00 UTC 2019
I respectfully make the following comments.
I am a .org registrant (arbanas.org / glenorchard.org)
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
R. Larry Arbanas
More information about the Comments-org-renewal-18mar19