January 2020 - comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20@icann.org

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by ROBERTO Arce Jan. 13, 2020

Jan. 13, 2020

I totally oppose to the raising of .com prices. It makes absolutely no sense. If anything, technology costs are decreasing.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Not an agreeable arrangement by any stretch of the imagination.
by John Canty Jan. 13, 2020

Jan. 13, 2020

The subject says it all. I can’t see how anyone thinks this is a good idea. Raising prices at a regular rate will take registrations out of the hands of ordinary people and eventually place it on commercial interests and governments only. Never consider something like this.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by John Riccio Jan. 13, 2020

Jan. 13, 2020

Hello, I am writing to voice my opposition to Proposed Amendment 3. Despite there clearly being potential financial gains to be had by raising the registration fee on .com domains, the global DNS registration system should be run primarily as a public concern. The only entities that stand to benefit from the proposed arrangement are verisign itself, at the expense of the public. While price hikes such as this likely won't mean much to the larger business concerns that buy in bulk, it will impact the millions of small, independent businesses and developers that rely on the system as is to make their livelihood. At worst, this could prove yet another point of pressure that convinces a small business to make their online presence exclusively in the Facebook walled garden and eschew the web itself. The web, and global DNS, were envisioned to be run for the public good, and they SHOULD be run for the public good. Deals such as this are an abdication of that mandate; short sighted profit chasing at the expense of all else. Please do not adopt this proposal. Best, John Riccio Buffalo NY

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Andrew Farnsworth Jan. 13, 2020

Jan. 13, 2020

Dear Madam, or Sir, I am concerned about this amendment to the Registry Agreement because it will affect, not just me, buy any individual who would like their own domain name. I am 100% sure that no corporation will object to the 28% cost increase every six years as they earn money off their domain name and paying almost any amount would be acceptible to them. However, there are a great deal of small businesses that would see this as a burden as well as individual users out there that have purchased their own domain name and are using it for personal use, not commercial use. Several of us have multiple domain names, if for no other reason than to protect our own names from being used to run a website. I personally have about 6 that I use to protect myself and my family while also allowing my children to be able to have a domain name that is exclusively theirs. 20 year Cost analysis: $ 7.85 / year 2018 $10.29 / year 2023 (31% increase over 2018) $13.49 / year 2029 (72% increase over 2018) $17.68 / year 2035 (125% increase over 2018) $23.17 / year 2041 (195% increase over 2018) I am aware that the 7% is a maximum per year for each of the four years and, theoretically, there could be no increase or a sub 7% increase some years, however, I have little faith on this being the norm and, most certainly, CANNOT plan on it being any less than the full 7% in any fiscal plans made. I understand it would be extremely difficult for you to create a regulation that would charge businesses more and individuals less, however, that may be what is required at this time. This would leave a loophole for businesses to have an individual register their domain name, however, no corporation of any size will be willing to leave their domain names in private hands. This would also allow fledgling businesses (aka startups) to keep their costs low at first. Remember, many businesses have been started in individual's garages. You may also assume that all ".com" domain names are used for, or are supposed to be used for commercial purposes, however, this is not the case today. If this had been defined and enforced from the beginning of the internet, this would be a non-issue, however, to start enforcing it today would cause many many individuals to lose their domains. Yes, there are other top level domains they can move to, however, that doesn't alleviate the fact that they would be losing an asset they had invested much time, money, and resources acquiring. Please keep the annual fee very low or consider a more flexible charging system for the .COM top level domain that will keep it accessible to individuals and small businesses. Thank you, Andrew Farnsworth

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] The new .com RA should make the URS apply to .com domain names
by Domain Name Request Jan. 6, 2020

Jan. 6, 2020

.com is the biggest TLD in terms of number of registered domain names. It is also the TLD with the most cyber squatted domain names. We therefore believe that any amended .com RA should make the URS apply to .com domain names. Thanks to the URS, trademark holders would have an additional tool for fighting against cybersquatting. [Vanksen]<http://www.vanksen.com> [Vanksen] [Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/vanksen> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/vanksen> [Linkedin] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/vanksen> [Instagram] <https://www.instagram.com/agencevanksen/> IP Department domainname(a)vanksen.com<mailto:domainname@vanksen.com> tel: +352 48 90 90 352 Vanksen, élue Meilleure Agence de l’année par Marketers<http://gala.marketers.lu/candidats-laureats/> et Media Marketing<http://www.mediamarketing.lu/news-fr-36739-vanksen-agency-of-the-year-au-lu…> [Vanksen]<https://www.digital-awards.eu/review/best-of-2019/> [Vanksen]<https://paperjam.lu/article/vanksen-remporte-google-optisc>

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Mark John Thorpe l NameSelling.com Jan. 3, 2020

Jan. 3, 2020

1 0