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

Re: [Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Sanjeev Shukla Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

This is totally absurd to allow a single company to own and operate a TLD .com which is by far the most used TLD. This reduces competition in the domain registration business but also creates a monopoly market where Verisign can do whatever they want. I completely reject this proposal and in fact would like a non-commercial non-profit entity to take control of .com TLD. Thanks, -- Sanjeev Shukla

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Nicholas Macaluso Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. Increasing the prices makes it more difficult for economically underprivileged people to own space on the internet. Nicholas Macaluso Brooklyn, New York United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Jason Solarek Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear ICANN, I hold many domain names, for personal and business use, and read about the proposed changes for Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. I would like to submit a comment regarding this: I suggest that instead of a 7% increase, you consider a lower raise, such as 4%. Seven percent far exceeds normal inflation. Thank you for safeguarding domains and allowing the web to be such an inspiring and productive space. Thank you. Shop indie, Jason CEO Bridge 339 E. 9th St. Suite B East Village, NYC 10003 Office: 1-212-254-9654 www.BridgeCatalog.com “Helping Small Stores Develop Big Websites"

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comment on Proposed Amendment 3
by Aapo Alasuutari Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I would like to voice my opposition to Proposed Amendment 3. I believe that 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. These price hikes will impact the millions of small, independent businesses and developers that rely on the system as is to make their livelihood. Further, 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 regards -Aapo Alasuutari

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Do not hike prices.
by Cirphrank iWrite PoeticAli Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I know there is a sporadic rise in how domains, websites are springing up on the internet. Albeit, truthfully, the sky is wide enough for all birds to fly and gasing all fatally is never an ideal way to control population increase, I believe we're smart enough to figure better ways to go about this, and so do I believe that this is not a case of greed creeping in. Kindly do not implement the proposed change. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] My Opinion on the Proposed .Com Price Increase
by Krishna Srivastava Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear Sir, Please donot raise .com prices. Thanks, Krishna

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comment on Proposed Amendment 3
by dav212＠gmail.com Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear ICANN and Verisign, These price increases will definitely harm my ability and my family’s, as a small business, to operate and continue to grow and perform in the digital services market. Attempting to increase prices unilaterally, without final consumers or registrar’s participation, is inconsiderate and hurtful for all of us who depend on the internet, and therefore our domains, to continue to make business in the United States. Please do reconsider this proposal, and help us continue to build a strong digital economy for my generation, and for my younger sister’s generation. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration, David Monges

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition
by Hafthor Snaer Thorsson Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I strongly oppose this agreement made behind closed doors without community involvement! -- kv. Hafþór S.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to .com allowing price-increases and "bribe"
by Jules Kerssemakers Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear ICANN, I am firmly opposed to this amendment. I am against baseless price-increases of any domains, including .com, in virtually all other forms. TLD-operators should operate on a not-for-profit basis, as providers of essential infrastructure in the internet age, to prevent perverse incentives deriving from the (very large) vendor-lock-in involved in a domain-name. A free market can function when changing between Registrars, but we cannot change TLD-operator without losing the valuable, branded domain. The only reason I would allow price increases is, based on openly published, unredacted, expense reports for operating the TLD-infrastructure, it is shown that an inflation-adjustment is needed. Each such adjustment must of course be backed by fresh reporting, and be judged on a case-by-case basis. There should also be a separation of powers between those running the infrastructure, and those selling the domain names. This currently exists for .co, in that Verisign as operator is forbidden from also running a registrar. Please keep this restriction in place. I know this restriction does not exist for the new-fangled custom gTLDs, and frankly, I believe that it is a mistake. It would be better for the internet if the separation of powers is introduced in all new gTLDs, rather than removed from "the classics". If Verisign earned enough money on .com that they can pay ICANN 20 million for vaguely specified purposes, apparently there is still too much profit being made, and a price DECREASE is in order. We live in a time where it is actually within humanity's reach to *permanently end poverty, everywhere* (per the UN development goal [1]), and we should be doing everything in our power to assist in this effort. Humanity should solve the poverty problem, so that it can concentrate its full energy on ever more exciting frontiers, such as solar system colonisation. The internet is "the great equalizer", where the content of your character determines your impact, not the depth of your pockets. Price increases only increase the divide between rich and poor, "have" and "have-not". Raising the entry-fee by making domain names more expensive excludes voices. TLD's are an essential infrastructure piece of the internet, not something to be traded for the maximum amount of money. I am against this amendment. Kind regards, Jules Kerssemakers [1] https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/poverty/

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Why are you doing this
by Brian Nibley Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Hello, You all need to be held accountable for making these kinds of decisions without any independent oversight or user participation. Companies are required to give their shareholders the option to vote on major changes, but this change in the business of how domains are financed has completely taken domain owners by surprise. This should be a criminal act. This comment probably makes no difference, assuming anyone even reads it. But I for one have to at least give it a shot and say this is not okay. -- Brian Dean Nibley

1 0