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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry
by Thoai Trinh Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 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. Thoai Trinh Austin , Texas United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Strongly object to the amendment
by Saranam Mark-Greenberg Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I strongly object to this amendment and the private negotiation between ICANN and Verisign that will result in dramatic price increases for .com domain names. Agreements like this, affecting the many .com domain owners, such as myself, should not be made by !CANN without input from those many domain owners. I am aware of Verisign's promise to pay ICANN 20 million dollars. This amendment and the associated agreement with Verisign seriously calls in question ICANN's credibility and integrity as a regulatory organization. Sincerely, Mark Greenberg United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Unnecessary price increases in .COM domains must not be allowed
by Kian Moretz Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN Public Comment Technical Issues
by Keven Dabney Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

(Text Version Below) Please see the attached PDF for a better graphical example of what is broken. --------------------------------- Keven Dabney Internet Professional February 14, 2020 Subject: ICANN - MAJOR ISSUE with this public comment process - there is a MAJOR TECHNICAL FLAW that is rendering all external links to the wrong postings! Desired Resolution: ICANN should immediately stop removing public comments and extend the public comment period to allow for the problem to be addressed. Description of Issue: We would like to bring ICANN’s attention a significant bug with the ICANN public comment process. This is making the system impossible to use and it is not allowing stakeholders to read and digest information that is being submitted with other stakeholders on the Internet, in blog postings, and via email. It is making last minute submissions to the process nearly impossible as the IDs are constantly changing! When comments are removed (or deleted) from the system by ICANN, all comments shift down by an ID. Say for example you have seven postings (this example is used for illustration purposes with fictitious ids and fictitious names): ---------000100.html---------Amy Agnew ---------000101.html---------Betty Becky ---------000102.html---------Cathy Charles ---------000103.html---------Dennis Dean ---------000104.html---------Ernie Emmerson ---------000105.html---------Fannie Famous ---------000106.html---------Greg Garrett When ICANN (for some unknown reason) deletes a posting, it “shifts” all of the other postings numbers up by one. Thereby citing a previous posting and linking to it is impossible, making the public comment period buggy, problematic and extremely difficult to use. When the third post above is removed (or deleted), all comments beneath it “shift down” therefore completely hiding the post by “Cathy Charles” and thus every ID beyond it is no longer linkable or citable. In the above example we get this result: ---------000100.html---------Amy Agnew ---------000101.html---------Betty Becky ---------000102.html---------Cathy Charles---------(Deleted By ICANN) ---------000102.html---------Dennis Dean-----------*Id changed by Cathy’s deletion ---------000103.html---------Ernie Emmerson--------*Id changed by Cathy’s deletion ---------000104.html---------Fannie Famous---------*Id changed by Cathy’s deletion ---------000105.html---------Greg Garrett----------*Id changed by Cathy’s deletion First off: Who is removing these postings? By which criteria are they being removed? Is there a public log or record of the removed postings? More importantly, we immediately request that ICANN stop removing postings. It is breaking the entire public comment system and does not allow anybody else to see what someone has said with a direct link to the particular posting. ICANN also has a duty to extend this public comment process - as it is clearly broken and it is making all external links reference an entirely different public comment. This would give respondents, including myself, the time to properly cite prior postings which have now all been messed up and don’t allow links I have been reading to work or point at the right locations anymore! It is unfair and unjust, it is broken, and it is a mess! Preventing many last minute submissions. The URL’s and the ID numbers should not be changing! Please fix postings from disappearing and being replaced by others, while other legitimate comments now don’t have a permanent URL that is easily referenceable and/or addressable. More importantly, I need additional time due to ICANN’s blunder here in order to submit my final submissions. Thank you. - Keven

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Edward Carr Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, I CANNOT believe you want to do this. if you want to drive people away from .com, jus go ahead. People are not stupid. In the end everyone will lose out because of… greed. Thanks but no thanks for Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement Best regards, Edward Carr

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] This is absurd
by pedro＠pedrorotoli.com Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Not a fiar decision
by Jorge A. Chavaco Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hi, I don't think it's a fair decision for domain names to be increased without taking the customer's opinions or concerns into consideration. I really hope you reconsider this decision otherwise I'd be forced to closed many of the .com domains I have registered for so many years. Thank you for your time and consideration to reverse this decision. Sincerely, Jorge Martinez

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by thoaidt Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 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. Thoai Duc Trinh Los Angeles, California United States Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Disappointed in .com price increase
by Bluehat Dave Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

The internet works best when it is open to all. This decision reinforces monopoly power to the detriment of society. -- BlueHat Dave bluehatguru(a)magfest.org "Resource Management" Department Head Space Marine

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM Price increases
by Jordan Gehman Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Please do not make changes that will allow the prices of .COM domains to increase. They are an affordable option compared to others. Jordan

1 0