[governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell

[chlebrum (via governance Mailing List)]

One solution —> go to OPEN-ROOT system 😇👍🏻
www.open-root.eu

Chantal LEBRUMENT 

> Le 28 nov. 2019 à 13:24, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> a écrit :
> 
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:10:30 +0100
> Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> 
>> Yep, .org does not have a monopoly, just a brand.  There are plenty
>> of other TLDs, more all the time, and if there are organizations that
>> really can’t afford $12/year or $15/year for a domain, they can use a
>> domain from one of the free TLDs (not the
>> surveillance-economy-subsidized ones, but the actual free ccTLDs). 
> 
> What's your source for the assumption that a price hike would only
> increase the price to $12/year or $15/year?
> 
> Vint Cerf has been quoted [0] with the statement, “Hard to imagine that
> $60/year would be a deal breaker for even small non-profits.”
> [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/
> 
> A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that would
> prevent price differentiation with “value based pricing” where the
> registry would charge organizations in accordance to the value that
> (as unilaterally decided by the newly profit-oriented registry) the
> registrant organization derives from its continued ability to use the
> domain, so that if the registry believes that your organization can
> afford that, it might charge say $1000/year or $10000/year or even more?
> 
> The cost of changing your domain name (without also keeping the old
> domain name and setting up redirects) includes loss of all incoming
> links which you are not able to get updated.
> 
> If you have a lot of incoming links, and you care about not breaking
> them, the cost of not renewing your domain name (because it has become
> either more expensive than what you think you can afford, or because
> a prince hike is in your view abusive in the sense that it and/or its
> circumstances make you angry and the decision to not renew the domain
> name is made for such a reason) needs to be calculated to include to
> cost of the hours (either provided by volunteers or by paid staff) that
> will be required for working on addressing the issue of incoming links.
> 
> That is the perspective of the concerned organization.
> 
> We should also consider the perspective of the general public, who will
> get annoyed by lots of broken links to non-profit orgs and to content
> provided by them.
> 
> Do we really want to live in a world where a price hike is allowed to
> break all links to content at archive.org and intgovforum.org etc etc?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>