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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] dot com increases
by Frank Kaufmann Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Please do not raise dot com fees and levies This exploits entrepreneurs in both for profit and not for profit sectors It sorely disrupts fundamental channels for commerce and will create a widespread disdain for your role in the internet experience Until now your role and function was not know to average users, but if you raise dot com fees and levies, you will enter into the public consciousness as "the enemy." as greedy, voracious, and oppressive. Please find your money elsewhere and avoid this yet another of the million cuts as we constantly taxed in deceitful and underhanded ways. It is better to encourage productivity, imagination, and energy, rather than working to sap it based on petty money grubbing. Thank you Frank K -- Frank Kaufmann Ph.D. https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkaufmann http://frankkaufmann.com/ <http://frankkaufmann.blogspot.com/> http://12gf.org Tel +1 646 220 8281

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I strongly oppose the increase in .com domain rates
by Jason Kerwin Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

This choice was made un-democratically and adversely affects small domain-name owners like myself. Please re-consider. -- Jason Kerwin jkerwin(a)umn.edu (612) 625-5719 http://www.jasonkerwin.com

1 0

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

Feb. 10, 2020

Stop!! Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Not in support
by Rachel Cline Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

I am not in support of the proposed changes

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comments on Amendment to .COM price increases
by Michael Leger Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

To Whom It May Concern; I am a small business owner. I am writing to express my concern over the proposed allowance for price increases for .com domains. The cost of doing business on the Internet is already quite challenging for a small business owner. The proposed 7% annual increases for the next four years, then freeze for two, then increase for four, then freeze for two, etc, is essentially a guarantee that the cost of owning a .com domain will only be affordable for the most lucrative businesses in the not too distant future. The usage of these additional funds is not specified. Why is this increase necessary? The proposal also would allow Verisign to become a domain registrar, essentially creating a monopolistic business in one fell swoop. Why was the process for proposing changes done without public and industry input? As a business owner and consumer of various domains, I cannot see a problem for your proposed solution. I only see a policy that would allow one company to gouge all consumers of .com domains without recourse. Please relegate this change to it's appropriate place in the recycle bin. Sincerely, Michael Leger Homeodynamics.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price increase to Domains
by Heidi Jazmin Colmenero Ortiz Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

I understand you have taken the decision to increase in more than one way the domains .com prices to a point where it will not be accessible to a great part of the population. It is my opinion that this can only mean you want to get richer and restrict possibilities for those who have less. I don't think it is a good measure. -- *Heidi Jazmín Colmenero Ortiz* *E-mail:* heidijazmin(a)gmail.com *Skype:* heidi jazmin colmenero ortiz *Tel:* (+52) (279) 821 5055 *Cel: *(+52)* (*228) 824 6855

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I oppose this amendment
by Jess Jones Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

As a personal holder of three .COM domains, and the responsible party for a fourth on behalf of a small business (three employees with minimal profits, he operates as much as a public service as he does as a business), I vehemently oppose this quid pro quo cash grab. 1. ICANN was created to operate in the PUBLIC interest. This "amendment" serves no one but ICANN and Verisign, who do not collectively constitute "the public". 2. Barring any extenuating circumstances, the entire point of an AGREEMENT is for both parties to be held to it; freely and privately amending it on a whim violates the spirit of an agreement. 3. The .COM TLD was not enforced as a commercial-only TLD, and as a consequence many individuals have registered and built sites upon .COM domains for their own personal or professional purposes prior to the proliferation and popularization of other TLDs. If it *were* enforced as a commercial-only TLD I could see the interest in raising prices as larger commercial entities do often profit wildly off their domains, and using such activity to help maintain the domain infrastructure could be considered in the public interest. This is not the case though, and as such price increases disproportionately affect individuals and small businesses. 4. The amendment does not specify how the payment to ICANN is to be spent, leaving the looming specter of largess and misuse. Had the amendment laid out strict guidelines for how the money would be used IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, I might almost be able to forgive it; but it doesn't. If the .COM domain price structure were shifted to a tiered status, where individuals and small businesses paid a lesser fee for their domains while larger corporate entities who are profiting significantly off their domains paid more, I could appreciate this more; it would reinforce the concept that the fees are for the maintenance and improvement of the domain infrastructure since the larger entities of course put a greater load on the system in terms of DNS queries and such. Even better, base the tiers simply on root domain traffic; domains that have less than X queries to the root servers per year (a reasonable amount to be determined by ICANN based on current traffic) qualify the following year for "small user" status, and either lump everyone else into a "large user" group, or create further tiers (10*X, 1000*X, etc) to keep domains affordable for smaller businesses while larger businesses pay their fair share to maintain the infrastructure they profit from. Even if the agreement were better structured, such that the increases would be limited and reasonable, I could perhaps forgive this. Instead, the agreement gives Verisign broad leeway to pump prices as they see fit, giving ICANN a percentage of the forecasted profits in return. This is utterly unacceptable and completely AGAINST public interest, and must be stopped. Sincerely, Jessica Lee Jones Massachusetts, United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Do not raise fees for dot.com websites!!!!
by Rockets Redglare Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

To Whom It May Concern: Please do NOT raise fees for dot.com websites that will consolidate our information resources among the wealthier website holders! It is your duty to serve ALL PEOPLE JUSTLY. Thank you! Rockets C. Redglare 651-505-3773 We are wholely loved, cosmically embraced, and continually encouraged! HV Info strip www.HunaVaruna.net <http://www.hunavaruna.net/> www.Minnesota-Emf.com Ask me about BEMER technology!

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN & verisign deal
by Kolten F Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

Unacceptable, shady, and greedy. That’s how I feel about the deal. No longer will be using a .com domain if this isn’t reverted or monitored to not screw the people.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed amendment No 3: no go
by Sebastian Di Mateo Feb. 10, 2020

Feb. 10, 2020

I oppose this amendment. The internet is mainly a public space with tremendous potential over the entire human race. .com domains are one of the most used worldwide and promote the free trade and flow of information. This amendment will only raise costs involved in this process giving only a few companies advantage over millons of others. It's a no. --Sebastián Di Mateo Rosario, Argentina

1 0