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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposing the .com changes
by Millan Singh Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Hi. I'm a registrant of a number of .com domains and someone very familiar with how monopolies work. As the .com TLD is the largest TLD and most recognizable by customers, it's imperative that there continue to be competition among registrars that offer .com domains. I heard about this change to the rules regarding .com domain names, and I want to strongly urge ICANN to discontinue this deal. Not only is it undemocratic, having been negotiated behind closed doors without any press, but the rules changes are potentially EXTREMELY bad for registrants. We already know there is an issue today with digital marketplaces finding ways to compete directly against the things they're selling, and since they're closer to the source with less middle-men involved, they can often bully the original makers out of the market. This happens on Amazon.com all the time and with other retailers as well. I bring this up, because the changes proposed over how Verisign will be allowed to operate smell an awful lot like this practice. Verisign, as effectively the digital wholesaler/platform, should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to create a registrar to compete directly with other registrars offering the .com domains. This is a MASSIVE conflict of interest. Further, while I understand the deal is likely very appealing to ICANN due to the $25M in funding attached to it, I strongly urge ICANN to consider the cost of that money. It's plainly a bribe to get ICANN to allow Verisign to increase their prices (without any real justification) and engage in monopolistic behavior. In conclusion, following through on this proposal would be incredibly harmful to the health of the internet and the ability for registrants like myself to freely and affordably register .com domains from the registrants of my choice. Please reject this proposal and find another way to gather additional funding for ICANN. Thanks you. -- Millan Singh, Polymath writer, designer, and developer. Webdev by day, practitioner of the hero's journey by night. My podcast: http://anchor.fm/spyfy My website: https://millansingh.com/ <http://millansingh.com/>

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Re iCann plans to increase price
by Hazel Chin Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

As a website owner, who have yet to earn any income from hosting sites and spending laborious long hours at the keyboard, I aggressively object to any increase in prices! Running a website requires lots of investment of time and money which does not promise any returns in any way most of the time. Only few lucky ones with a stroke of luck get to gain bsck some return of investment. Hence for the sake of the majority website owners I appeal for iCann to maintain current prices. Regards Hazel Chin

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN and Domain Name Issue
by Evan Clark Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

I obviously oppose this move by Verisign. I don't want my companies prices to increase for no other reason than greed. We need our elected officials to act like adults and do something. We need our regulatory bodies to stop with this bullshit. We can do better. We must do better. Please listen to the billion internet users that don't want this to move forward. -- *Evan Clark* *Executive Director, Atheists United Los Angeles* *Founder & Creative Director, *Spectrum Experience 978.501.2691

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com price increase
by Mohammed Elmennaouy Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Hello, As internet user and freelancer, I assume that you already know that the .com tld is very important for the web in general. Any increase in the domain name prices will affect as directly specially that many of us use multiple .com domain names, please review this decision and respect our will. We will be so sad if we see that the freedom we have on the web will be controlled by others, we hope it will stay free and available for everyone, and not dominated by a few.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Not interested in you raising the costs of .coms
by Cecil Carter - STI Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Not interested in you raising the costs of .coms For shame

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Please don't make these changes
by Angel Dominguez Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Dear ICANN, I am opposed to the proposed amendment which will result in a price increase to .COM domains from which Verisign will profit immensely for no justified and explicit reasons. At the very least, there should be a detailed plan and estimate on how the proposed cost increases will benefit the public interest before making such sweeping changes and only profit a single managing entity with vague terms. There should also be an evaluation of the current cost of managing the domain in comparison to how much is generated under the current pricing agreement to judge how well Verisign has been managing the domain in comparison to other companies. Please remove this proposal and present another one that makes sense. Sincerely, Angel Dominguez, PhD

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by pierre jean Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 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. If you want to find money, just run after all the fraudulent owners who bought insignificant domains for them in the only goal to resale them for indecent prices. Make them pay for their forfeit, they are just thieves. Pierre Jean Montreal, Quebec

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I disagree
by Alexandros Filos Kaparelos Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Hi there, I completely disagree as this will make prices increase over the years and will lead people away from .com domains as alternatives will be much cheaper and more fashioned. Alexandros Filos Kaparelos Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I do not agree with Amendment 3
by Jon Shahen Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Hello ICANN, I understand the need for money to support ICANN infrastructure, but I do not agree with your proposed amendment. There are certainly better ways to better support the organization without pushing this heavy cost unto customers. Internet addresses should not be hard to obtain, or so expensive as to prevent experimentation and entrepreneurship. Sincerely, Jon --- Jonathan Shahen PhD 2020 Computer Engineering MASc 2016 Computer Engineering BASc 2014 Computer Engineering University of Waterloo

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] (no subject)
by Leadway tourstravel Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Gge increase will turn out eay too expensive for the user. Please drop the plan to increase the tariffs.

1 0