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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 Considerations
by Mark Murnighan Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 2020

Committee members, There are some industry trends that need to be considered when voting on the proposed Amendment 3. In the technology field, cost of compute resources is decreasing exponentially. The speed and density are increasing exponentially and driving the "more for less" precedence. For example, if a DNS entry is 10,000 bytes of data to store and manage, the cost to do that has diminished 10-fold in the last ten years. Asking for more to manage something that is going to cost you less is not logical. On the reverse track, the number of DNS registrations is also increasing, meaning they are getting an annual increase in volume, providing them with a much large revenue stream strictly by the increasing volume in number of units. The high volume also drives down costs. Facts should reject increases and actual propose an Amendment to reduce the cost per DNS entry. Switching the topic to the security side of the infrastructure is a valid topic that needs to combat in a real time manner by the provider awarded the contract. Security is a single part of the provider's services that were awarded and should be covered within the provider's deliverables. Provider should be including normal maintenance for their infrastructure. Security is never completed, as fast as you close holes in a system new holes will be discovered. Thinking you have to ask for more money to do your basic maintenance just tells me they were the lowest cost provider because they offered a subpar solution to under bid the competition that probably included these mandatory required maintenance items in their cost (forcing them to lose the bid award). I have been working in this industry since the before the internet existed and this proposed Amendment seems to be a political ploy like purchasing $10,000.00 dollar hammers the public can by at any local hardware store for $10.00 dollars. Please do you due diligence and reject the proposed Amendment 3. Registrants should be getting fair market value for services rendered. Sincerely, Mark Murnighan Brooksville, FL NOTE: This is my personal view and has no relationship or backing from my employer or customers that I may provide services for.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Tracey Chan Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 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. Tracey C Port of Spain, Port of Spain Trinidad and Tobago

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] COM price increases
by JGUK Sales Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 2020

Hello Sorry this price increase is too much, can you instead look at reducing USD prices please. It's 2020, prices are falling, technology is cheaper every 2 years, there is no reason to ever put prices up Thank you Jonathan Grant -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Domain Sales* **JGUK LTD *On promotion Premium Domain Sale <http://jguk.org/>* *How can we help you?* sales(a)jguk.org

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] (no subject)
by naomi koji-paton Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 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.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Alex Guzman Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 2020

I'm from Trinidad and Tobago. We're a small island developing state in the Latin America/Caribbean region. Our ability to register domain names is already affected by the unfavorable exchange rate to USD. A glance at the rates at which people register new domains for our region will surely reflect that it's already less likely for our businesses to create their own .Com websites. I believe that increasing the price of registration of new addresses will have a disproportionate negative impact on the stakeholders and potential stakeholders in our region. Full disclosure: I use the Internet but I am not currently a .com registrant. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. I believe that the current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. I believe that ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest and has a moral obligation to consider users in SIDS as well as regions that are not economically advantaged. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Alejandro Guzman Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Domain names should be free
by Margareta Virlan Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 2020

What is the actual price of maintaining a domain name? Years ago used to be somewhere at 0.3 USD Now for sure is lower since the cost is divided among much more names, even the actual total cost obviously increased. So anyway, the domain names industry is already a huge rip off. The cost of collecting this amount of money is higher than the actual cost of the service This cost should be covered by other means. It is like having an address at your house, or your PO Box. We pay for the actual box, pay for delivery, but not for its address too. Soon we will need to pay for our own name, of for every time we cross the street. That street light must be paid... But what we can do other than express our opinion? Greed will prevail anyway. Margot. retired

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Please figure out and keep the registration fee low for individuals / start-ups / micro businesses.
by Frank | Mobile Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 2020

Please figure out and keep the registration fee low for individuals / start-ups / micro businesses. Kind regards. Frank | Mobile

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Karl Andrian Papasin Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Karl Cebu City, Central Visayas Philippines

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by 刘天琪 Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 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. LiuTianqi Chengdu, Sichuan, China

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Increased profit for VeriSign, complicity at the cost of others
by Susannah Feb. 9, 2020

Feb. 9, 2020

Dear ICANN Board and Executive, I write to request that you oppose Amendment 3 to the .com registry agreement: 1. The pretext for these price increases is internet security and stability, but the cost will be borne by one small sector of the whole population who benefit from, and rely upon the internet for commerce, community, and personal use. In short, you would continue to make registrants the cash cows for what are effect strings of digits, while society at large, and internationally, could more justly spread the load of funding internet security. 2. I suggest to you that VeriSign's desire to increase annual profits, with prices ahead of the rate of inflation, has no real connection to the need for internet security. Their request for changes in contract is not philanthropic, nor does it have to be, but I argue it needs to be challenged. The whole issue of internet security is a 'front'. 3. Internet security is an issue for the whole world, and not just registrants, or ICANN, or the DoC, or (fundamentally) the USA. It is an important issue that deserves governmental funding, and international funding by agreement, but it has nothing to do with Verisign selling domain name registrations through Registrars and increasing profit it from it. 4. Writing as a correspondent from the UK, and as a former elected member of ICANN at Large who was at the heart of the challenge to the fraudulent trademark claims by Registrars and Registrants during the .info fiasco/scandal, I wish to voice a non-UK complaint of complicity that has in the past, and arguably in this instance, been at work between DoC, ICANN, Registries, and ultimately large Registrars as well. The Internet does not only belong to the USA, and yet we still have a situation where a Registry is cutting deals with a US governmental body, and offering 'sweeteners' ($20million) to ICANN. Historically, ICANN has often been believed by others to collude with DoC and Registries/Registrars to oversee a 'laissez-faire' approach to Internet Governance, and has effectively shut out grassroots Internet Users who are more representative of the worldwide internet public and society than DoC or Registries. The concern I express is that, notwithstanding this 'consultation', this is a done deal. 5. It should be obvious to right-minded people that access to the internet and its processes (including domain names) should be made increasingly easy for people, especially in places of abject poverty and deprivation. Logic, reason and compassion drives the case for lowering the price of registering electronic strings of digits, not granting a large company carte blanche to raise prices year by year. 6. The DoC has cut a deal, which impacts internet users across the world. What governmental discussion has openly and transparently taken place internationally to 'get permission' for the DoC's green light to these changes? In a world where balkanisation of the Internet... in China, in Russia, elsewhere...threatens to separate populations; and where there is a continuing danger of internet access becoming layered on the basis of wealth... ICANN's continuing dependence on DoC, and vested US interests (including in this case corporate interests), is a reflection of a partisan imbalance of power, where a domestic US department can rubber stamp privileges for a corporation that impacts people across the world. 7. Policy should be developed by internet users and governments across the world, rather than interest groups cutting deals in symbiotic relationships. In my opinion, we have seen symbiotic relationships that bring revenue to Registrars, to Registries, to ICANN... and in return for this neat arrangement, the US reserves the right to basically govern the Internet's DNS operation. Historically, ICANN has resisted the attempts to give an ICANN at LARGE of ordinary internet users a significant role in democratic oversight and policy development. 20 years ago, this complicity and collusion was, I believe, epitomised by the appalling Afilias roll out of .info. When a board member of the Afilias Registry itself was able to use fake trademarks to get domains, when multiple Registrars did the same thing, when a single individual faked 5000 trademarks to get first picks of popular and valuable domains... and ICANN were appealed to... and the response was laissez-faire until a worldwide pressure group of users managed to force a re-run of that roll out... what we witnessed was internet governance where vested interests were allowed to game the system, and policy and rules and due process were glossed over. That is where we are. It goes on. Corporate interest, and opaque relationships in the US, seem to trump the interests of ordinary users. We are talking about a system upon which nations and communities are dependent for vital infrastructure, for medical work, for commerce, for compassionate charities, for community groups, and for interaction between nations. Policy is basically being imposed. These price rises will be imposed. That is how policy is done. It's decided upon by those who will benefit from it. Susannah Clark

1 0