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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] (no subject)
by Tom Goodall Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I'm a registrant of several .com domains and I do not agree with the proposed price increases to .com domains. Any such decisions should be made in extensive consultation with the community. This decision should never have been made because the current price is already above what it needs to be, let alone any increase. Verisign clearly want more money and want unfair leverage in the marketplace. It's their prerogative to want that, but it is not right for you to agree to it. You are supposed to run the system in the community's interest, not theirs. Please do not go ahead with this proposed change.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN-Verisign LOI and the Third Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Michael Karagosian Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To Whom It May Concern, This letter is in response to the request for public comment on the ICANN-Verisign LOI and the Third Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement. My comments below are based on the knowledge of ICANN’s non-profit status and its statement on its website that “ICANN’s fundamental belief is that all users of the Internet deserve a say in how it is run." LOI The LOI doesn’t make good business sense and would give Verisign an unfair advantage as a domain name registrar. ICANN manages, but does not operate, root servers. If Verisign is to provide services that increase security of the root server system, then it should be ICANN who pays Verisign. Verisign already sells security services to the domain name owners and registrars. According to Verisign’s website: “Verisign operates the authoritative registries .com, .net, .name, .cc, .tv, .コム, .닷컴, .닷넷 and קום domain names, and provides domain registry services for .jobs and new gTLDs. Verisign does not register or renew domain names—we work with domain registrars to register domain names.” However, the LOI will give Verisign the new ability to register domain names, allowing it to compete with its customers and enage in anti-competitive behavior. The LOI will give Verisign the ability to underprice to the public similar services already offered by its domain registry competitors by overpricing its existing services to those same registrars. Nothing in the LOI prevents this. All things considered, there is no evidence that the $20M to be paid ICANN by Verisign is nothing more than a quid-pro-quo. It enables Verisign to unfairly compete with the domain name registries that rely on it, which would be worth much more to Verisign than $20M. Not named in the LOI, but coincident to it, is the Third Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement, which gives Verisign the ability to increase fees to its customers for .COM names by 7% a year. This is yet another gift in the quid-pro-quo in return for the $20M. Third Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement No explanation is given as to why Verisign has earned the right to increase .COM registry fees by 7% a year. If Verisign’s costs associated with security are increasing, why isn’t this stated, and why is Verisign depleting its valuable resources by paying ICANN the $20M per the LOI? Altogether, giving Verisign the right to operate as a .COM domain name registrar to the public, while charging competing .COM registrars service fees that increase 7% a year, is simply a formula for anti-competitive behavior. This is clearly not in the public interest. Both the LOI and the Third Amendment need considerable re-thinking and should not be executed as-is. With best regards, Michael Karagosian President MKPE Consulting

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition against .COM Price Increases
by Mark J Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear Sirs, As you know , we expect -if not facing already- global economic crises, and most of small business struggle to survive, and one of survival methods is to has voice on the internet. So by increasing the .COM price, you are participating in crippling those small business and push them to reduce costs & shut down and prevent others from using online business, which creates a butterfly effect that influence the whole world economy. Dear Sirs, maybe your self suffering from cash inflow, but solving a problem by making big problem isn't wise. So kindly , think again to keep the .com price. Best regards Mark https://www.almanypestcontrol.com/

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com price increases
by Ada Worcester Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

ICANN, I was recently made aware of your recent agreement with Verisign to allow them to increase prices significantly for .com registrations. In light of both the significance of the price hikes (far outstripping inflation) and the secretive nature of these negotiations, I cannot help but feel that this proposal must be rejected outright. ICANN is not a for-profit entity, and it must not be expected to maximize profit -- particularly not in its role as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. ICANN must instead act as a public service, for all users of the Internet, and seek to maximize the general good. And, of course, while it has no particular contractual obligations to, by any reasonable standard it ought to honor the memory of the previous Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, Jon Postel. Therefore, I ask again, that you back out of this agreement, and act in favor of the Internet, not Verisign. Sincerely, Ada Worcester Staff Site Reliability Engineer -- Red Canary

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] (no subject)
by Bill Kent Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1. ICANN made its seal behind closed doors. 2. It has ignored a unified opposition. 3. Changes to the .com agreement will significantly affect businesses, especially small business like mine. 4. The agreement will have annual increases of more than two times the inflation rate, with no controls or oversite. This lacks fairness. 5. In the agreement, Verisign is paying ICANN $20 million over 5 years to support it's initiatives. No explanation given why. No explanation of how ICANN can spend the money. Or if funds properly spent.. 6. Verisign can operate as a domain registry. 7. Worst yet,. ICANN had ignored previous comments of supporters relayed to price controls. This is a lousy deal for small businesses. Verisign should not be allowed to operate the top level domain .com Thanks, Bill Kent Clearview Home Inspections Inc

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Mohd Bashar Iqbal Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains as the price increase would further increase the burdens on the normal individuals and small business owners which are the major registrants of .Com domains. It is just Verisign who wants increase .COM prices and they should just act like mere manager of the .COM Registry that is only for that they are for. They should not dictating the price of the .COMs. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Bashar Iqbal Delhi, India. -- *Bashar Iqbal* *bashariqbal(a)gmail.com <bashariqbal(a)gmail.com>*

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] The Need for an Affordable Internet
by Joey White-Swift Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear Sir or Madam, It is my opinion that the reason that the internet has been such the success that it has been is due to the ability of all to enter into it. If you have a neat idea, you can affordably create a space to be the next great product or service. The thing that everyone thinks of as a mark of this success is .com, that is to say that when people hear a .biz, .bb, .xyz, or even .net, they immediately have a lower connotation. They ask "Why don't they have a .com?" This may be due to phishing or scams over the years or the .com boom, but everyone thinks of the .com as the standard for safe, reputable business. While large companies can afford whatever you charge them, small businesses may be forced to spend their money on "lower quality" / secondary domain names and are more likely to be perceived as lower quality or not above bore. This is not to say that each domain name does not have a purpose, each does; it is to say that the collective perceived security of .com is fundamental to a thriving society and economy. In the past, non-root dns servers were set up to expand upon the options that you did not provide and forced you to even take some of the offered domain names into your fold. If you raise the prices on the fundamental domain names like .com, you may set yourself up for greater interest in such services again. If it was not clear already, I oppose the changes that you have proposed in the amendment and I hope you realize the deterrent they will cause, and urge you to do the right thing by terminating amendment 3. Thank you for your time, J. F. White-Swift

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Naseeb Panghal Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Naseeb Rohtak

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I oppose the .com price increase
by Pat Hartary Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a .com registrant and I oppose the proposed price increases in .com domain names This is a money grab pure and simple. Costs would come down if public bids were allowed. Do not hurt business owners. large and small, by raising the cost of buying and renewing domain names for digital commerce. Stop the .com price increase now! Regards, Pat Hartary

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Need for transparency and price controls- drop the Verisign deal
by Ann Myers Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello Please provide details about the .com increase and your spending plans for the $20m from Verisign. Verisign being allowed to be a domain registrar will have a chilling effect on competition and allow them to drive up prices. I'm guessing this is why you are receiving $20m. Shady dealings behind closed doors, by a company that is a monopoly with complete control is disconcerting at best. ICANN should be the most transparent and neutral company there is, keeping the internet as open and cost effective as possible. Ann

1 0