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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com domains
by Cosmin Cătălin Sanda Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I totally oppose to the raising of .com prices. It makes absolutely no sense. If anything, technology costs are decreasing. ------------------------------------ *Cosmin Catalin SANDA* Data Scientist & Engineer Phone: +45.27.30.60.35 Web: https://cosminsanda.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Changes to ICANN and Verisign
by Lars Wettmann | CIRCLE Dance Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear ICANN, I think the internet should be a free and affordable space for everyone - which includes starting business owners and everyone out there who has a big message for the world - but not a big budget. .Com domains are one way to spread your message and deliver much more trust than any other domain. We are aware of your new deals with Verisign and wish you’d keep a) Prices in check - don’t let them allow to raise the prices. This is basically a monopoly and you would allow them to take advantage of it. b) Transparent about how you will use the money from Verisign. c) Verisign from becoming a domain registrar via a daughter company. This just screams that they can take advantage of it and it’s a very bad deal for the whole world. Why would you allow something like that? d) Listening to us! The internet is such an important place and we encourage you to listen to your moral standards and to all the people out there - just like me - who want to change the world for a better place. Don’t obstruct us but support us! You have the means to and a huge responsibility. We thank you for your time and hope that you reconsider your deals with Verisign. Kind Regards, Lars Wettmann Artistic Director CIRCLE Dance t.(085) 8888 330 Website Email Discover our upcoming classes and workshops:CIRCLE Agenda What's CIRCLE Dance? Learn about what we from CIRCLE Dance do to make your life as dance professional a little bit better every day. Visit us at www.circle.dance by CIRCLE Dance | 2014-08-26 | 610

1 0

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

Feb. 11, 2020

Hello ICANN guys. Seriously, I hope there will be an investigation by the U.S. Government into this if it happens and that the douche bags involved end up spending lengthy terms in prison. It all looks to me like some of you are trying to take advantage of a loophole you’ve discovered and try to make as many millions as possible without having to justify how it’s spent so your executives can get even larger bonuses, probably paid out under the table as well. I’d like to know what's the justification for this? What possible reason you have to increase the cost of already pricey domain extensions. Sounds like sheer GREED to me!

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM
by Joshua Perez Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

The internet is a universal community for all. Not one that should be taxed due to a site being .com or not. There is no benefit to the majority of the online community with .com the act of .com being taxed in fact only repercussions. .Com owners will struggle to keep their site alive.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] You are Making internet Unaccessible
by Usman Riaz Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

The recent agreement to increase.com price will make the internet unaccessible for a lot of people. Some amazing small bloggers will be taken away from the internet. And a lot more. Instead of decreasing the price, You are increasing it. It's such a shame.

1 0

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

Feb. 11, 2020

I am a domainer (I invest in domain names as a business). I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. No one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. Verisign is merely your manager of the .COM Registry – it has no business dictating the price. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Adel alTerkait Kuwait

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposing the cost increase of .com domains
by Félix Cloutier Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I oppose the cost increase of .com domains proposed by Verisign. It is difficult for me to understand what ICANN understands "negotiating in good faith" to be. It seems clear here that ICANN and Verisign stand on the same side, and this makes it hard to treat those communications as negotiations. There is not even an attempt to hide the $20M kickback. The entire proposal reads like a litany of excuses for why increasing the wholesale price of .com domains isn't a big deal, and is very, very short on the real benefits of the deal–aside from a guaranteed 7% year-on-year increase in revenue to Verisign's .com business. ICANN has not explained which projects it believe need 4 million dollars a year in funding, or what it is in position to accomplish aside from creating new rules for gTLDs. This proposal is unacceptable in this form and should be rejected.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN: Do not allow Verisign to raise .com pricing!
by Uli Schroeder Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

*Hello ICANN,** ** * *We, the millions of .com domain name registrants all over the world, stand to lose the most from a .com price increase, and we DEMAND THAT ICANN REFUSE ANY .COM PRICE INCREASE!** * * * *I'm one of those registrants and your shocking misuse of the trust you've been granted for years is beyond words.* *Regards,* *Uli*

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Please stop the increasing. Com prices
by Ramy Yamany Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear all, I am Ramy Yamany please stop increasing the price of .Com domains so that we can handle it in africa and not to make our work stop

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comment in re: Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Aaron Severson Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

As a website owner, I regard the proposed Amendment 3 with considerable alarm. There has been an ongoing global movement to make the web less accessible, ranging from attacks on net neutrality and the imposition of onerous regulations. Now, ICANN proposes to exacerbate that problem with a substantial price increase on the most commonly used commercial domain while asserting that this usurious increase is somehow "in the public interest." That assertion runs directly contrary to any common sense; the net effect of the change would be to further squeeze small businesses and small operators, who are already at the greatest risk of loss in the present web climate. I take further issue with the assertion that by structuring the increases to encourage registrants to register or renew for multi-year periods constitutes "registrant protection," given that the entities from which registrants need such protection are the very ones proposing the rate hike. That is a remarkably cynical framing of what mainly seems like an effort to drive an increase in short-term revenues. That may be in ICANN's interest, but it's certainly not in the interests of registrants or the public. Many small operators, including myself, cannot afford to purchase a decade's worth of services in advance to secure some discounted rate; the costs of poverty are a well-known economic reality. It is not that people or businesses of modest interest don't recognize the opportunity for savings, it's that they are simply out of reach. The amendment alludes to ICANN's concerns about security and stability, which are of course worthy goals. If ICANN could demonstrate that certain price increases would be necessary to achieve specific technical or regulatory compliance goals, I and the rest of the online community might regard the proposal with greater sympathy. Instead, the proposed text buries vague promises in noncommittal language: We are told Verisign and ICANN will "work in good faith" and "define . requirements" for potential future improvements. The way this reads to the layman is that the parties are determined to raise rates now and will take their time in coming up with reasons to justify it, with no promises that the substantial increased costs will yield any tangible benefit. Moreover, the emphasis on encouraging registrants to renew for multiple years suggests that we can look forward to future rate hikes, again with only the haziest promise that it will yield any benefits to the security, stability, or integrity of the web. I think it would be appropriate for ICANN to consider carefully its role and responsibility in the modern online world. For example, does ICANN believe it is in the public interest to preserve the accessibility of the web as well as its technical stability? Does ICANN wish to forestall the danger of the Internet being steadily reduced to a handful of channels controlled by a few large corporations, like cable television? If so, you should reconsider this amendment and the proposed rate increases, because they work directly against those ends - and against the public interest. ________________________________________________ This message was sent by or on behalf of Aaron Severson dba Ate Up With Motor ( <https://ateupwithmotor.com/> https://ateupwithmotor.com) 11100 National Bl. #3, Los Angeles, CA 90064. If you do not wish to receive future email messages, please reply with the word "REMOVE" in the subject line or click here: <mailto:admin@ateupwithmotor.com?subject=REMOVE> admin(a)ateupwithmotor.com?subject=REMOVE. To view the Ate Up With Motor Privacy Policy, click here: <https://ateupwithmotor.com/privacy-policy/> https://ateupwithmotor.com/privacy-policy/.

1 0