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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] objection
by Thanyalat C. Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

To whom this may concern, Verisign is already monopolize the whole domain name system with .com, not to mentioned the contracts secured with ICANN in the domain name spaces. This amendment benefit everyone but consumers, a classic business strategy when the majority of the internet users are all locked in to the domains that registry can control their market price. With situation like this ICANN should be in a role of protecting the internet community at large, not the other way round. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Rushil Jain Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Hi, I don’t agree with this proposed amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement. The process was undemocratic and will definitely make registration of the .com domain highly expensive over the course of the next 10 years. I urge you to strike down this amendment and implore you to involve all relevant internet communities in the decision making process in the future. Regards, Rushil Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Do not raise prices on .COM
by Alexander Mikhaylenko Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

In the age of market dominance by large corporations which spy and sell user data, we must stand against raising prices on the domains. The independent web property with a unique domain is still one of the most open ways to get your voice heard. By increasing prices, we will build a higher entry barrier. The technological infrastructure costs are going down every year, I don't think we have any reason to raise the price for .COM

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20@icann.org
by Cindy Guta.com Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

I am associated with the secondary market in domain names. 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. Best regards, Cindy Guta.com <http://guta.com/> 古塔网 Tel(USA): ＋1 678.901.9388 Tel(China): +86 0592 5936 936 Mobile(China): +86 188 5927 5278 Wechat(微信): guta-cindy E-mail(邮箱): cindy(a)guta.com Skype: cindy(a)guta.com ᐧ

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Philippa Lamb Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. 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. Small businesses such as mine already spend a big chunk of our running costs on online and digital expenditure. The internet is our shop window and we cannot exist without it but that is no justification for Verisign to exploit our dependency. The proposed increases are totally unjustified and Verisign should restrict its activities to managing the registry not exploiting it. Philippa Lamb Cambridge, England United Kingdom

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed amendment 3 to the .com registry agreement
by Jack Yan Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Ladies and Gentlemen: The price rises proposed in this amendment are deeply troubling. The internet was, when it was founded, a democratic medium, one where a small business with a great idea could shine as much as a big business could. Look at the companies that rose in that early era, such as Googlecompanies that started with low cost, including securing a dot-com domain name. The internet of the '90s was for the many, not the few, and this great equalizing effect produced innovation. Small- to medium-sized businesses no longer needed massive budgets to reach potential audiences. Part of this democratization is the ability for anyone to afford a domain name, to compete on a level playing field with larger, better financed organizations. Raising costs to a prohibitive level for some will harm innovation: for one, people will not be able to have the legitimacy that a unique domain name would give them. It would affect their efforts to give their creations a unique brand name that will help them market their ideas. It would also give an advantage to better-financed citizens, which to me flies in the face of the raison d'être of the medium. The United States is already being harmed immeasurably by its change in philosophy over monopolies: once considered harmful to innovation, giving rise to your antitrust legislation, they are now being tolerated in certain casesone only needs to look online to see where this has got us. Internet giants dominating the landscape, making it far more difficult for competitors to stand out. And competition, I thought, was helpful to a country that so believes in a market economy. The fact that Google, Facebook and others offer "free stuff" is deceptive: people might not be parting with cash, but they are parting with their identity. My point is that there are already forces that work against individuals and small- to medium-sized enterprises, and ICANN is putting up one more if these substantial price increases go ahead. Raising domain name prices, especially in the dot-com space, therefore, stifles the economy in numerous ways. In my opinion, the negatives outweigh the positives, and I urge you to keep the dot-com TLD accessible to all individuals. Yours very truly, Jack Yan Jack Yan, LL B, BCA (Hons.), MCA CEO, Jack Yan & Associates <http://jya.net> Publisher, Lucire <http://lucire.com> and Autocade <http://autocade.net> Co-chair, Medinge Group <http://medinge.org> ----------

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comments against the proposed price increase to .COM domains.
by F.D. InnoVations Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Hello I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. The current rate we paid is already far more then justified. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest, and not against it. I hope you will consider ending this proposal to increase the price of .com domain names and give users a break. Costs continue to rise for all types of internet services and this should not be one of them. Thanks for the consideration. No one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices. Verisign is merely your manager of the .COM Registry – it has no business dictating the price. Thank you Fannie Huet F.D.InnoVations Inc.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] (no subject)
by Andrew Haining Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

The Domain name system is one of the most vulnerable parts of the internet to oligarchic takeover and step like this one are how they intend to implement it. Despite it's prominence the dns system is actually entirely optional & should be replaced with a more honest alternative. Actions like this and those taken last year with the .org domain represent an assault on the freedom of the people of the world and will give other organisations the political imperative to abandon the dns system altogether, it’s in ICANN and Verisign’s interests to refrain from continuing down this foolish road towards complete irrelevance.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Iddo Oberski Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

Dear people, I am a registrant of a .com domain name. 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. The Internet was always intended to democratise communication and resource sharing, so access to Internet domains should be easy and affordable for everyone. Best wishes. Iddo Oberski Edinburgh

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Volker Greimann Feb. 13, 2020

Feb. 13, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name and work in the domain name industry. The new registry agreement contains various concerning issues that must be addressed before the agreement can proceed. The way that increases in registry fees are negotiated between ICANN and the Registry operator is anti-competitive and violates the rights of the parties that will ultimately have to pay these fees. Change in registry fees should be subject to negotiations between the parties to the registry-registrar agreement, e.g. Verisign and the accredited registrars and subsequently subject to review and approval by ICANN (to compensate any inequalities in negotiation powers). ICANN unilaterally agreeing to changes to registry fees without consulting the parties subject to those fees is anti-competitive and essentially disenfranchises registrars of their negotiation powers. I also am concerned about the proposed changes to the registry-registrar agreement that are included as part of the amendment of the registry agreement. Essentially this amounts to creating new obligations for contracted parties and registrants through the back door without policy. ICANN is proposing to create new obligations for parties that are not even at the table in these negotiations. Any changes to the Registry-Registrar agreement that create new obligations for either side cannot be unilaterally imposed by ICANN or the registry operator, but must be negotiated and/or approved by the parties to that agreement, subject to ICANN approval. Sincerely, Volker Greimann Saarbrücken, Germany

1 0