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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price increases will thin out the web and fatten the kings
by Jeff Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Me and my company object to significant price increases for obtaining new and/or renewing domain names from registrars. Many of our clients start with very little capital and startups are already financially risky. It does not help matters to add extra costs to new and growing companies. Social media sites seem to have taken majority of the traffic and there's already less visitors to small business sites. These small businesses have to invest more money already, competing with the bigger companies while search engines are making constant changes and requirements to how the web should be, thus requiring more investment in developers. Further taxes/fees on domain ownership is not a good strategy for enterprising the world wide web for the masses of business owners and even smaller individuals with their personal portals, paying out of pocket, with no intent on financial gains. -- Jeff Bastan (510) 449-3089 webcitypages.com <https://webcitypages.com/ms.pl?subj=emtb19>

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] No to upward review of .com price
by Samuel Achema Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Dear ICANN, kindly desist from harming your reputable image by agreeing to this upward review in the prices for .com domains. It will be in the general interest of the public if you keep the prices as it is. Regards. Achema Samuel

1 0

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

Feb. 10, 2020

Hi there, I'd like to register my objection to the increase in .com prices. I am a small business owner and 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. Any further increases make it more difficult for small business owners like myself to run our businesses. 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. Shimrit Elisar London

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Don't increase .com price
by mkpi49＠yahoo.com Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Com domains
by Roberts Pauls Eglitis Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

I am against any domain price increases. Roberts

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Don't Do This..
by Bunns of Steele Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

As a poor individual, I can barely afford to pay my current fees to host a site. This increase will make it impossible. Not only will you hinder small businesses like me, but you will also cripple the Internet as we know it ruining your long term gains. Lynora Lawless

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Anger about price changes
by Maac Gimmel Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Hi, I'd like to express my anger about the coming price changes!

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by s.willett＠stevenwillett.com Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Hi ICANN, As the owner of multiple .com domains, both personally for my own small business and managing this as part of my job role day to day for work also, I find it totally disrespectful that you have chosen to even consider a financial offering from Verisign of this magnitude to allow for what is proposed to be a huge hike in .com wholesale domain prices of potentially up to 70% increase. The new TLD's are already extortionate and should have helped expand the web, instead it has been seen as another money making opportunity and only restricting growth and accessibility online globally as a result. Totally disgusting and as the governing body for this, your one key role is to avoid this sort of disgraceful act happening in the first place, not be the culprit or a clear party to such an act. These sort of acts will drive the web into the ground, go against the whole purpose of what the web stands for and drive uproar and acts that would see governing bodies targeted, if not at a government level questioned for acts of inflation beyond justifiable grounds. I for one would like to see this proposal retracted, public inclusion in all decisions going forward, greater transparency of every agreement no matter the scale, very much like any government, your role is simple but not to take financial rewards to allow for inflated gains for others. To quote: "The idea is that Internet governance should mimic the structure of the Internet itself- borderless and open to all.", this act will be the complete opposite of your own values. If money is the driver, just like SSL encryption has done to help make the web a better and safer place, lets look at open source opportunities for domain management, ownership and governance instead of supporting those out to control and just financially gain through such process and acts. Through open source means to govern the web and the TLD's and its registrars, millions of contributors bought into each decision of the global web, its standards, domain management, instead of a select few willing to take a payoff and claim it's in the interest of the WWW. As you can gather I am not best pleased to hear this news nor that ICANN are at the heart of this $20 million dollar payoff. Retract, publicly announce and move forward! My piece here is said, publicly I will begin awareness as this is just down right disgusting. Regards Steven Willett.

1 0

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

Feb. 10, 2020

I disagree

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposal
by m.kouwenhoven＠binaryrun.com Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

To whom this may concern, Please stop this proposal from going forward. The approved increment price-increases in the proposition are harmful for the accessibility of the internet. By allowing a continuous price increase over such an extended period of time, you’d be actively supporting the restriction of ownership of a domain name for those with a lesser income. Not only would this impact those who use a domain name for personal use, it also prohibits those, especially youth on a small budget, who use the internet to start their own small business. While I completely understand this is may not be your main concern, in many rural countries, such small businesses and entrepreneurship can prove vital to local communities. I plead with you to please reconsider the proposal as a whole or at the very least, restrict the annual price increase to no more then 2 to 3%, so that those who depend on the accessibility of both .com and the internet, have a better chance. Sincerely, Matteüs Kouwenhoven

1 0