[Comments-org-renewal-18mar19] Proposed renewal of .org registry agreement

[Darrell Budic]

I am a domain name registrant, including of .org domains.
I don’t believe ICANNs actions in the case of the .org domain (and other legacy .TLDs) are in line with the supposed “bottom up, multi-stakeholder model”. Instead, they appear to cater to the new breed of commercial registrars who are only out to make a buck. This model is totally inappropriate to the .org (and other legacy domains) that have operated effectively in a restrained, not for profit, model since their inception. There is no valid economic reason for removing the price caps or inserting the URS policy (a policy currently under intense debate by the ICANN Working Group even). No benefits will accrue to the actual end users who hold .org domains, and in the event of a change at PIR or perhaps a takeover of the operation of the .org domain by a different registrar for any reason, significant financial harm could occur to organizations who had no idea it was coming. And I don’t feel that existing registration of a domain protects existing domain holders adequately, it simply pushes the harm down the road to their next renewal date. Many of these organizations are not involved in the ICANN process either, and won’t have any inkling that the foundation of the agreement they entered into years ago has changed.
In short, I oppose the changes to the legacy .org (and other legacy) agreements. While streamlining the registration agreements may be nice for ICANN, it has the potential to harm the millions of users of .org and other legacy domains. I feel ICANN should be standing up for these end users. They are, after all, the bottom up side of the stakeholder model, and should be prioritized even at the expense of a little more work for ICANN.
Sincerely,
   -Darrell Budic
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/attachments/20190425/ab4dd436/attachment.html>