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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by ilangovan ramasamy Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 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. -- Thanks & Regards, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by ilangovan ramasamy Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 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. ilangovan Chennai, Tamil Nadu India Thanks & Regards, ilangovan ramasamy Handheld : +91 - 9600034588 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Follow us : https://twitter.com/ilangovanr Like us : https://www.facebook.com/ilangovanram Hangout : https://plus.google.com/+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposal to NOT increase .com domain prices
by James Chung Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

I have a few legitimate online business that use the .com domain. It gives us credibility and authority status, which we appreciate. It also allow for global biz spread and thus improving the way biz can grow with much speed and balance. With the onslaught of a lot more option .shop, .tv etc, of course there is much administration work, and thus costs to keeping the industry intact. There should be more governance on these, as they are freely and abusively taken up by less than legitimate biz, and many fly-by-night, get-rich-quick practices, versus the regular registered businesses of .com. Perhaps the imposition of higher cost should focus on biz legitimacy than .com online entities. Moreover, I do not support the notion that Verisign should increases in .COM prices. The current rate of about $8 is already far more than justified, which is under 25c a domain, thus close to a 100% profit. ICANN can still do well to govern the domain name system in the public interest, without Verisign to exert a negative impact via higher costs. Thank you. Siah Chung Singapore

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Nishith Bhimani Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. 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. Nishith Bhimani Rajkot, Gujarat India

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com price increases
by DarkStar Computing Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

Hello, Do not allow Verisign to have the potential of a 7% price increase year after year to increase the cost of doing business on the internet. My company owns several domains and as a small business owner it's hard enough to make it without prices potentially doubling in the next few years. Thanks, David (623) 255- 8265 www.darkstarcomputing.com <http://www.darkstarcomputing.com/>

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement Inbox
by David Harrison Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

Hi, While I am not directly opposed to the idea of a price rise for .COM domains, I /am/ opposed to the idea that a for-profit company should be the sole authority to manage .COM domains, and thus receive the majority of the benefit of any price rise. I understand there are solid reasons to only have one entity managing the space so that splitting responsibility might be challenging for many reasons. I would like to suggest that the space be managed by an not-for-profit entity that has the best interests of Internet users in mind. I would like to nominate Mozilla as an entity that might be worth considering: - they have a strong track record of protecting the rights of Internet users - they have the experience and the systems in place to manage large-scale Internet projects - users can be confident that any revenue they generate will go back into other projects like Firefox which benefit everyone. Thanks for your consideration, -- Regards, David Harrison

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Outrageous
by Tejas R Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

Respected members of the committee, I have been involved in the domain name industry as a consumer for nearly 13 years now, and this news of ICANN's collaboration with Verisign and the new pricing agreement, is nothing short of outrageous. Without adding much, I hope the committee will reconsider the serious implications of this decision, and make amends. Regards, Tejas Ramakrishnan

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by rajma＠rajma.net Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. Rajma K McKenzie United Sates

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] FW: .COM Price Increases [ ref:_00D616tJk._5004MZLAvl:ref ]
by Tanya Owens Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

I was told to resubmit my comments to a website where comments are closed, which is why I eMailed ICANN. [cid:image003.jpg@01D5E7CF.2989A230] My comment is: This price increase, this deal ICANN has made with Verisign will inordinately harm small businesses, hobbyists, and individuals with domains who are poor and marginalized. This deal will effectively kill small businesses and entrepreneurs who do not have a lot of capital and/or whose businesses barely keeps them afloat. It will stifle the voices of people who cannot afford the new exorbitant fees, making the internet less of a place for the people and more of a place for oligarchs. Do not do this. From: ICANN Global Support Center [mailto:globalsupport@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 6:50 PM To: Tanya Owens Subject: RE: .COM Price Increases [ ref:_00D616tJk._5004MZLAvl:ref ] Dear Tanya Owens, Thank you for contacting ICANN Global Support. We have received a high volume of comments regarding the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. If you have experienced trouble submitting your comments, please try resubmitting your comments at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en or email your comments to "comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20(a)icann.org". I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for contacting ICANN. Best Regards, Aisha Herrell Global Support Analyst II ICANN Global Support --------------- Original Message --------------- From: Tanya Owens [tanya(a)tanyaowens.com] Sent: 2/15/2020 12:58 PM To: globalsupport(a)icann.org Subject: .COM Price Increases Cyrus Namazi, This price increase, this deal ICANN has made with Verisign will inordinately harm small businesses, hobbyists, and individuals with domains who are poor and marginalized. Why are you doing this? Concerned, Tanya [http://icann-nsp.my.salesforce.com/servlet/servlet.ImageServer?oid=00D61000…]

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN Proposed Amendment #3 is Censorship on the World, a Threat to Democracy and Strengthens a Monopoly
by Arif M. Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

Hello, my original (submitted at 11:58pm UTC 2020-Feb-14) submission did not go through and I was told by Ozin Sahin to resubmit my comments to this email. "By submitting my personal data, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>, and agree to abide by the website Terms of Service<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>." Thank you, Arif Mirza Montreal, CANADA ======= Original Comment ======= ICANN Proposed Amendment #3 is Censorship on the World, a Threat to Democracy and Strengthens a Monopoly Dear Members, Board Members, Employees and Advisors of ICANN, I write to you today in hopes to make you aware of the potential damage your Proposed Amendment #3 will do to the Internet Community as a whole, as well as to all the citizens of the world. Before doing so, I feel I need to quote something to serve as a reminder some of you seem to have forgotten: "In performing its Mission, ICANN must operate in a manner consistent with these Bylaws for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole” - ICANN BYLAWS 1.2a (First Sentence) While your proposal to allow the raising of .com pricing 31% from $7.85 USD to $10.26 USD might not seem like much, I specifically specified “USD” to stress the fact that for the majority of the people you are charged to represent, almost any price in “USD” is already a challenging sum to accrue. Yet many people still pay what is a sizeable fee to them, because establishing themselves on a .com domain finally gives them a global voice, a planetary platform, a megaphone to the world; from which they can share information and ideas to improve their quality of life; or their political situation in the case of the oppressed or those who do not benefit from the same legal rights and freedoms of those in the nations where $7.85 seems insignificant; or even develop businesses from which the brightest entrepreneurs in the world can empower themselves to economic freedom for themselves, their families and communities while offering helpful goods and/or services to be benefited from by the rest of the world. In fact, it would be wrong for me to even try to list all the possible ways in which a globally understood Domain Name can benefit an individual, a community, a society or even humanity as a whole. Such a list could never actually be complete specifically because of the grandiose scale of imagination and diversity of thought throughout our shared planet. With regards to ANY increase in costs to .com domains, it is imperative that you understand that by allowing such increases to continue, you are removing the abilities of some to continue to have and share their voices, ideas and visions. What you would in fact be doing is censorship against the citizens of the world rather than helping those without a voice to finally have one. It would also be a threat to democracy in the cases where people struggle to share crucial information or their own ideas, and then go on to debate and challenge the status quo in hopes for something better. The foundational premise of the internet is to help bring every citizen of the world together, as such we should be fighting to remove and reduce the barriers to access in each and every way possible, with one of the most notable being the cost of having a voice, the cost of being relevant, the cost of sharing an idea, information, a vision, a concept, a project or any of another countless things from which the rest of humanity can learn or grow from. Beyond that, while clearly the pricing increases within Proposed Amendment #3 will be harmful to the people you are pledge to serve and protect, the “Internet Community” is still in growth. Also to be considered are not just the people currently with a .com domain who might no longer be able to afford the current global recognition thanks to having a .com domain; but also those who at $7.85 per year are already priced out of having such a voice. By implementing Proposed Amendment #3 you are effectively ignoring the voices of those who are currently unheard; of those who for whom having a global voice isn’t even possible now. By allowing the increasing of prices you would be diminishing their voices even more, sadly rendering them effectively meaningless because nobody will ever get a chance to listen to what they have to say. With private enterprise creating and operating ngTLD registries, I personally don’t mind them seeing them used and even priced based on different priorities. Some of such TLDs have great potential to improve the Internet. HOWEVER .. It should be very clear that there be a foundation of the Domain System and a minimum catalogue of TLDs available to anyone and everyone, regardless of race, location and fiscal capacity. By far the biggest and most significant of such TLDs is the .com TLD, of which there is currently no match and no realistic alternative. While the current partially private structure within which the .com TLD is set up indeed has certain basic costs that cannot be ignored; the current .com steward, Verisign, is one of the most profitable companies in the world when it comes cost:profit and employees:profit ratios. The term “Cash Cow” is one regularly used when discussing the fiscal strength and success of Verisign. While all companies should strive to remain profitable, in this specific case it needs to be VERY clear that any unreasonable profits made by verisign, comes at the cost of censorship upon the least fortunate people in the world. Please do not forget that fact, and do not ignore your mandate to serve the ENTIRE global community. ICANN should not and cannot simply ignore the facts and numbers, as those numbers prove that there is zero necessity or need to increase prices and therefore further incapacitate a larger portion of global citizens from acquiring a .com domain, one of the strongest globally recognised platforms in human history. Furthermore, not only should any potential .com pricing increases be removed from Proposed Amendment #3, but if indeed ICANN were truly concerned with ALL the people they are mandated to represent, they should end the monopolistic and anti-competitive nature of the .com TLD and open the .com registry to actual competition via a bidding process. This is not to say that the secure and stable history of the .com TLD under Verisign’s stewardship should be completely dismissed, nor that it shouldn’t even be given a premium versus other potential bidders. But without any real competition and a complete and fully transparent costing analysis of the operations of the .com registry, ANY increase in pricing in any way given the ever continuing reductions in technology costs is quite simply absurd. In the end I implore you to think of the millions and eventually potentially billions of people that WILL BE harmed if .com domains allowed to go up in price … and remember that it’s those very billions of people that ICANN is supposed to represent. Thank you for time and giving these comments the full consideration they deserve. If you have any questions or would like any clarifications, please do not hesitate to reach out. Regards, Arif Mirza Montreal, Canada

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Cort Deschamps Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 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. Cortney Deschamps Auburn, Washington United States

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of many .com domain names, and I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. It should be obvious that no one other than Verisign wants 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. Do that! Thank you for your time. Joshua Virkler Kissimmee, Florida United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed amendment to .com pricing agreement
by Sam Kingsley Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I oppose actions that increase the cost of domain names, particularly without future public oversight. These are national and global resources which should be managed for the public's benefit. Thank you Sam Kingsley

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Third Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement
by Greg Thomas Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Twice in my professional career, I have been employed by VeriSign (2009-2010 and 2013-2016) in senior roles with direct responsibility for designing and coordinating execution of policy programs that supported the company’s continuing ability to manage core Internet infrastructure, including the .COM and .NET domain name registries. Consequently, I’ve been helping to shape ICANN policy for over a decade and, though my participation has been most often in the background, I’ve had a unique opportunity to develop an informed perspective on the peculiar dynamics at the root of the DNS. Far too often, ICANN and its stakeholders are twisted like pretzels by policy minutiae and process when the public interest would be better served by a sharper focus on big-picture matters of principle. A principled approach to consideration of this Third Amendment to the .com Registry Agreement would accurately perceive this moment as a rare opportunity for stakeholders to evaluate both the tangible and intangible benefits – as well as the offsetting costs – to the public interest that accrue from VeriSign’s management of the Internet’s largest domain name registry. An honest and forthright performance review by stakeholders is critically important for many reasons, including the public interest imperative of accountability and transparency, and it must recognize and acknowledge that ICANN is unavoidably conflicted in matters involving its contracted parties. The recently announced investigation by California’s Attorney General into the proposed sale of Public Interest Registry along with the lucrative concession rights to operate the .ORG registry should be seen as a sign that others are becoming aware of ICANN’s conflicts. This proposed Amendment further fans the flames by creating the widespread perception that ICANN has engaged in a quid pro quo by trading approval of .COM price increases for $20 million — a stain of self-dealing that no amount of security, stability, and resiliency (SSR) whitewashing can remove. This matter, like any involving ICANN and its largest ratepayer, is made especially grim because of an aggravated imbalance between the two organizations. On one side there is a corporation with unlimited economic resources, a reputation for behaving as an entitled monopolist, and a proven track record of thin-skinned and aggressive tendencies, including an itchy trigger finger when it comes to the creative and anti-competitive use of legal counsel and the civil tort. On the other side is a consensus-driven debating society for smart and talented people that is preternaturally broke. We know that this lopsided state of affairs didn’t spring forth fully formed like Athena from Zeus’ forehead — so how did this happen? An admittedly non-legal theory is that the 2006 settlement agreement for litigation between ICANN and VeriSign is the means by which VeriSign obtained ICANN’s acquiescence for what is now called the “presumptive right of renewal.” Infrastructure providers in other industries often rely on presumptive renewal that enable costly investment, but usually they are also regulated and called “utilities.” Now featured in every registry agreement, this presumptive renewal is an anti-competitive contractual innovation which has had the practical effect of granting a perpetual concession, or de facto ownership and, as the saying goes, possession is 9/10 of the law. Maybe it wasn’t possible to predict how this would develop over 15 years, but it is possible to look back now and see that this effectively neutered ICANN as a credible regulator, sold the public interest down the river, and has created the dangerous dynamic where an insecure Goliath with unlimited financial resources and a martyr complex is alternating between bullying and buying as it seeks to preserve and prolong its concession. These issues have consequences that reverberate beyond the billions of dollars distributed by contracts managed by ICANN and, in fact, determine the integrity and legitimacy of private sector-led governance at the root of the Internet. Considering the public concern about the power of technology companies such as Google, Facebook and others, stakeholders should ask themselves: if the Internet’s core is rotten, then what can be expected at the edge but bitter fruit? *Distribution of Child Sex Abuse Materials in .COM* The distribution of child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) is reprehensible and indefensible. The Internet Watch Foundation, a group combatting CSAM online, reported in 2017 that 59.5% of CSAM websites reside in the .com registry, including the top 5 sites on the Internet. In 2018, a coalition of groups combatting CSAM online wrote to ex-NTIA Administrator David Redl and said: *Verisign is uniquely unforthcoming. We have regularly worked and had conversations with just about every Internet company you can think of and quite a few you are unlikely to know. Only Verisign has been so utterly uncommunicative. This is a very poor show and runs completely contrary to the spirit of multi-stakeholderism.* The letter continues in strong and unmistakable language: *To put the matter plainly, it is immoral for a business to attempt to deflect responsibility by arguing these matters are the sole provenance of law enforcement and courts. As the dominant Registry in the global system, Verisign should be taking a leadership position, adopting voluntary procedures to combat online child sexual abuse.* Now, two years later in 2020, ICANN has permitted the definition of DNS abuse contained in Amendment 3 – and which applies to the largest “territory” of the Internet – to exclude CSAM. Two questions ought to be answered before proceeding: ICANN will allow a “sanctuary namespace” to persist for the distribution of materials depicting the sexual exploitation of children in exchange for four easy installation payments of $5 million each? How does this accrue “for benefit of the public interest”? *Verifying Operational Accuracy* Technical proficiency has often been pointed to as demonstrating excellence in registry operations, such as statements about twenty-plus years of operational accuracy for .com. On August 19, 2019, a hosting service provider named InfinityFree experienced an outage that they described as being caused by “a bug in VeriSign” and further summarized the matter on their website: *It’s not normal that domain registrars, domain owners or hosting providers are able to cause changes to the domain names of other people registered with other companies. So this is quite a severe issue with VeriSign. And because of that, we are not able to fix this issue for you. * Statements made during VeriSign’s most recent quarterly earnings call referred to increasing investment in security that were mentioned with only vague explanations and an abbreviated response to a question from a financial analyst. There are any number of things that could have happened here, including the hosting provider being completely wrong. But considering that VeriSign apportions 97% of its free cash flow to stock buybacks rather than infrastructure investment, isn’t the public interest best served by determining if there was a technical failure of the registry before permitting the registry operator to increase its 85% gross profit margin by giving itself a raise? *Conclusion* Evaluating the Third Amendment’s benefits to the public interest shouldn’t be restricted to merely compliance with the handful of technical SLAs in the registry agreement, but should seek to measure other contributions such as the registry operator’s conduct as a corporate citizen and how it apportions the revenues generated from operating a concession for the benefit of the public interest. Care should be taken that the financial resources and market position enjoyed by the registry operator of .COM don’t become an impenetrable moat between the registry operator and the public interest it serves. Lastly, it may be possible to seek a ruling from a federal court that finds the presumptive right of renewal to be inherently anti-competitive and incompatible with industry self-regulation of the DNS. Perhaps California’s Attorney General will expand his inquiry and come to the same conclusion. This presumptive renewal and the resulting sense of entitlement causes significant harm and it should be excised from the root. -- *GREG THOMAS* *THE VIKING GROUP * *web <https://vikinginsight.com/>| twitter <https://twitter.com/realgregthomas> | linkedin <https://linkedin.com/in/game-changer> * *Schedule a call <https://x.ai/calendar/gregthomas>* *Check out **DNSDecrypt <https://dns.substack.com/> and find **independent information resources for Internet stakeholders and investors.*

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Transparency and the proposed increase in fees
by Jon McCarty Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

utf8=âœ“ authenticity_token=QYxAPLYWKkMGUulGmUdSFd8emurIDfOdBOQ9bOCBVyw5rqtMz0iJVsJ09BTTYjar1ufQs7U0u2cT9VST39714g== terms_of_services=yes commit=Continue While I don't have a problem with raising the fees, I have a huge problem with how ICANN went about it, seemingly making a decree with no public input. The proposal needs to be reconsidered, this time with some transparency of the process. Jon McCarty Annandale, VA 762 233 6449

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] No price increases
by Terry Young Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I as a user would like to comment and ask that you do not make a change in domain prices please

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] don't change the .com price
by Yunus Emre Özdiyar Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Don’t change .com domain price. We’re try to make better world with internet and the domains is the key and this kind of change effect the internet community.

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am not sure that there is much point to this exercise since I previously submitted a comment regarding the .org contract and sale, but you ignored it and the overwhelming majority of opinion and more insultingly described them as spam. Nonetheless... I work for a company that owns and operates businesses on multiple .com domains and am writing on my own behalf. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains, for all the same reasons I was against lifting the price cap for .org names. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified, as the actual costs to manage the database and servers is approximately one third of that amount and will likely continue to decrease into the future. Verisign is merely your manager of the .COM Registry with a perpetual right of renewal, granting it monopoly power. As such, you should maintain the price regulations that have been in place, since Verisign is not subject to market forces or a competitive bidding process. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest, not for Verisign or for the $20 million kickback they have proposed to you in order to renegotiate a contract that has 4 years remaining on it. I am also against any implementation of URS to any of the established TLDs as the UDRP process has proven to be more than adequate at resolving domain name/trademark disputes. Finally, I am utterly disgusted by the failure to follow the multi-stakeholder based, consensus focused processes that ICANN is supposed to follow, as well as the actions of current and former staff that indicate the blatant appearance of, if not actual, corruption. Count me as shocked if my comments are actually taken into consideration and acted upon David Riordan Tampa, Florida United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Keep .com fee low
by Warutumo Isaac Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Please keep the annual fee very low or consider a more flexible charging system for the .COM top level domain that will keep it accessible to individuals and small businesses.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Business Constituency (BC) comment on Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Steve DelBianco Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Attached is the comment of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC) regarding the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement This comment was drafted by Steve DelBianco, Andy Abrams, Zak Muscovitch, Alex Deacon, Mason Cole, Barbara Wanner, and Jay Sudowski. It was approved in accord with our Charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

My name is Phil Buckingham . I have been involved in the Domain industry before ICANN was formed . I have been a voluntary participant on numerous PDPs , spending hundreds hundreds of hours of my own free personal non chargeable time contributing my huge knowledge and experiences in ICANN’ s multistakeholder , bottom up , PDP model. ICANN’ s mission , its bylaws is to operate in the global public interest . One other huge responsibility it has to its empowered multistakeholder community - that is everyone around the world who owns a domain name , is to promote innovation , competition , consumer trust , consumer choice . It launched Round 1 of new gTLD registries in 2012 to do just that - to stop , reduce the total monopoly that Verisign controls , through its Registry agreement with ICANN . ICANN has totally failed its mission regarding these new TLD Registries . It has only further enhanced and increased registrations of .com and its monopoly . It is a totally insulting to its hard working volunteer multistakeholder community to allow these prices rises , that will undoubtedly be passed onto 135 million . Com registrants . These price rises just go straight to Verisign bottom line , already a 9.5 BILLION valued company . I understand that Verisign has offered a mere 20million dollars BACK to ICANN as part of the deal . This is totally totally unacceptable to ICANN ‘s multistakeholder community . Regards, Phil Buckingham Phil Buckingham Eastbourne, England United Kingdom Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM
by Sarah Graham Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I would like to oppose Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. This amendment will allow the wholesale pricing of .COM domains to increase every year for 8 out of the next 10 years, thereby allowing the wholesale price to grow by more than 70% over the current prices. Additionally, the contract allows for other price increases which could drive pricing up further. Ultimately, the amendment will make .COM domains less accessible and more expensive for everybody. Not only will the price increases limit accessibility, but there is also no clarity about how the increased revenue will be spent on infrastructure. There are no assurances that even if the steep increase in prices, the funds will benefit anyone who used .COM domains. These changes will have significant impacts on the internet for years to come. The decision should not be solely up to ICANN and Verisign but to those who will be impacted by this decision. Thank you, Wendy Graham

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. The .COM TLD is used by many social groups, grassroots organizations, and nonprofits as well as by people and entities of all types. The internet is most successful the more people that are on it, and increases prices by the most common TLD is not going to support more people and communities joining it. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. This rate increase is in direct conflict with that purpose. Amy Sample Ward Portland, Oregon United States *Amy Sample Ward* (pronouns <https://www.nten.org/about-nten/pronouns/>: she/her) *CEO, NTEN* Office: 503-272-8747 Mobile: 503-277-3180 amy(a)nten.org nten.org @NTENorg @amyrsward -- *Register for the 2020 Nonprofit Technology Conference. *Become a member and save $300 on your registration. <https://www.nten.org/ntc/?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20…>

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Verisign Public Comment
by Sembler, Melissa Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] My Opinion on the Proposed .Com Price Increase
by Julius D'souza Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN representatives, I’m not sold on the price structure. Inflation-linked price increases make sense but it’s how to see how up to a 30% jump in domain prices in a couple years is good for the internet community at large. Please consider the stewardship of the global community in how you allow domain pricing. Best regards, Julius

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Namecheap’s Comment on the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Owen Smigelski Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Attached is Namecheap’s comment on the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. Regards, Owen ____________________ Owen Smigelski Head of ICANN Compliance & Relations Namecheap, Inc.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] No increases in the price of .com
by Ryan Bilesky Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am writing to urge you to stop price increases on the .com Tld. Verisign has already gotten a great deal with no need to compete for the right to operate the .com registry. On top of that .com is so popular and the operational expenses so small when calculated on a per domain level, Verisign is already making significant profit from their registry operations. Allowing a price increase will only hurt website operators who'll be forced to pay more for no reason other than to further increase the already massive profits generated by verisign. ⁣

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comment Amendment - price increase for .com - no RFP
by alexandre gilbert Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hi, After reading the proposal, my concern is about price upgrade. The actual proposal may result in increases that are way over the inflation, and probably over the real cost of supporting the TLD. Having only one company result in a monopolistic environment, and at a minimum a a RFP (request for proposal) should have been done in order to recceive and retain the best submission from competitors. Thank you for reconsidering the actual proposal Alexandre Gilbert, owner of 5 .com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] An increase in .com domain price shuts the public up
by Oluseye Richard Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

We urge ICANN to be sensitive and not make getting the dot com domain more expensive than as it is...

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to dot-com registry price increases
by CQ Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to express my preference in maintaining low-cost .COM domain registrations. I have registered .COM domains for several small businesses and greatly appreciate the value a low-cost domain name provides to individuals and businesses. A website with a well named domain is a wonderful way for internet users to recognize people offering valuable services and information. Increasing the price of domain names without input from internet users and without regard for how such an action could impact .COM registrants seems disingenuous and flies in the face of the public interest. I hope that you reevaluate this proposed agreement to amend the .COM registry, as it also contradicts your stated core values. In performing its mission, ICANN adheres to these core values and principles: [a]. Preserve and enhance the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. [b]. Respect the creativity and innovation made possible by the Internet by limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination. [c]. To the extent feasible, delegate coordination functions to responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties. [d]. Promote international participation at all levels of decision-making and policy-making. [e]. Seek broad, informed participation reflecting the functional and geographic diversity of the Internet. [f]. Introduce and promote competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial. [g]. Where feasible, depend on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment. [h]. Employ open and transparent policy-making mechanisms that promote well-informed, technically sound decisions. [i]. Make allocation and assignment decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively. [j]. Act with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the Internet but obtain informed input from those most affected as part of the decision-making process. [k]. Remain accountable to the Internet community though mechanisms that enhance ICANN's effectiveness. [l]. While remaining rooted in the private sector, act with sensitivity to governmental concerns for the public interest so that the need for direct governmental action is minimized. Kind regards, CJ

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] No.
by Jon Gaskell Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am vehemently opposed to this deal giving Verisign the right to increase pricing in this way. I urge you to solicit feedback from all of the affected users instead of quietly making deals with limited public oversight and input. Price increases may be inevitable, but this is not the right way to do it for consumers large or small.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] TurnCommerce Response - Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by jeff＠turncommerce.com Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Please see attached comment from TurnCommerce Inc. Thank you, Jeffrey Reberry Co-Founder TurnCommerce Inc. 2635 Walnut Street Denver, CO 80205

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com price increase comment
by Jackie Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of multiple .com domain names. I do not want any increase in .COM prices. The current rate is already plenty. -Jackie Beck Tempe, Arizona

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Jessie King 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. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. Jessie Birmingham, Alabama United States Jessie King Administrative Assistant Spartan Invest 2015 3rd Ave N Birmingham, AL 35203 205-202-4118 x115

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I strongly oppose this amendment since it will induce an undue and unfair burden on the public. The ability to afford a domain affects how people can participate online, and the price increases that will result from this amendment will make this form of communication and participation unavailable to people of limited economic means. And for what purpose? Please reconsider this amendment for the sake of the public

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed amendment 3
by Don Kurta Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Pushing this amendment is wrong on so many levels. This is blatant collusion between ICANN and Verisign. It simply benefits ICANN and Verisign at the financial detriment of everyone else using .com names. The legality of this will be challenged. Losing a class action suit is very expensive especially with retroactive punitive damages. Don Kurta

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price change
by Back Office Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear Sir / Madam, I am a registrant of a .com domain name, and I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. Abdul Qadri

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Do not raise the price of .com domains
by J Brauhn Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Do not raise the price of .com domains

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I use the Internet but I am not a .com registrant. 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.Miranda Solar Seattle, Washington state United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Amendment 3
by Andrew Calderwood Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comment to .COM Registry Agreement
by Roslyn Layton Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Please find my comment to the .COM Registry Agreement Proceeding. Please contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Roslyn Layton, PhD Evidence-based Tech Policy Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.<http://www.aei.org/scholar/roslyn-layton/> Visiting Researcher, Center for Communications, Media and Information Technologies, Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark<https://vbn.aau.dk/en/persons/roslyn-mae-layton> Co-Founder, ChinaTechThreat.com<https://chinatechthreat.com/> Vice-President, Strand Consult<http://www.strandconsult.dk/>

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposing pricing increases to .com domain names
by Jennifer Hemphill Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of multiple .com domain names. No one other than Verisign wants increases in .COM prices. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. - Jen Hemphill, Annandale, Virginia

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] GNSO IP Comments re Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Brian Scarpelli Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

On behalf of the GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency, please see attached comments on Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. Brian Scarpelli IPC Participation Coordinator

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] GoDaddy Comments on Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by aheineman＠godaddy.com Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Please find attached GoDaddy’s comments on the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. Thanks. Ashley Heineman Director, Global Policy GoDaddy aheineman(a)godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman@godaddy.com>

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comments
by robinson micheal Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I don't support the increment of .com domains

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price increase on .com domains
by Robbie Yu Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello I am very opposed to this agreement. Moving forward with this will impact more people in a negative way rather than those it would help. Please reconsider before executing this order.

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I use the Internet but I am not a .com registrant. 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. Kelly SouNorth Tustin, California United States Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Please do not increase the costs of .COM domain registrations
by Darío Hernán Irigaray Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I do not agree that the values of the .COM domain registrations increase, since beyond that many firms do business by registering and selling the domains, many of us have our company, our work behind a domain, where we simply need your backup . It would seem more correct that they work to deactivate opportunists who seek international brands and register them as soon as they find out to enrich themselves without working honestly. Do not be complicit, be part of the solution, without harming those who honestly use domain registrations. Thank you! I send you a warm Patagonian greeting! Sincerely *Darío Hernán Irigaray* Director Ejecutivo | CEO Tel. ++54 [9] (299) 5-802-903 *Editorial Patagonia Activa ®* Tel: +54 299 447 4333 Carlos H. Rodriguez 260 - Primer Piso (8300) Neuquén - Patagonia - Argentina www.patagoniaactiva.com info(a)patagoniaactiva.com *Visite nuestros sitios webs:* www.vacamuertanews.com.ar www.elperiodicoderincon.com.ar www.limaynoticias.com.ar www.hechosdezapala.com.ar www.guiavacamuerta.com [image: Mailtrack] <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=sig…> Remitente notificado con Mailtrack <https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=sig…> 14/02/20 18:29:07

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Hadaydoyin Hadaydoyin 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. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Yoosuf Hafeez Lagos, Lagos Nigeria

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Very concerned about amendment 3
by Allen Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To whom it may concern, As a holder of about 15 domains for personal sites I am very concerned about the decision to allow fees to raise. Since I am not a corporation I don't make money from my domains and cannot simply pass the costs along to my customers. Raising fees will hurt personal sites, small businesses, and those trying to develop the next big thing on a shoestring budget. Please reconsider this decision. -Allen Gevry

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. Akintola Seun Samuel Lagos, Nigeria. ᐧ

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Amendment and Commentary Criticism
by Kevin Edwards Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To Whom It May Concern, > "ICANN org is not a price regulator and will defer to the expertise of > relevant competition authorities." If you have been limiting wholesale registrar's prices and are now allowing higher prices, then you are, by definition, a price regulator or price fixer. > "to support ICANN’s initiatives to preserve and enhance the security, > stability and resiliency of the DNS" Was that already part of your mission or is that mission creep beyond basic name assignment? In either case, you should clarify what exactly requires more money and how it will be spent, if you want public support. It wouldn't be bad for ICANN to stop regulating prices if the result would be a properly competitive free market that naturally seeks lower prices for independent services, but the market is basically a monopoly at your level and Verisign is paying you to let them raise prices on other people. As an aside, I have a friend whose self-named domain: stephaniewohar.com was hijacked or drop caught by Chengdu west.cn for unrelated spam purposes, and it would have cost her upper hundreds or thousands of dollars to recover, so I'm not particularly impressed with the cost effectiveness or current structure of your monopoly. Kevin Edwards

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] don't raise prices
by M T Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

please don't raise .com prices. it's not sustainable to everyone that isn't big business. I want my own website for my business for the solid fact i don't want to go through a middleman who can absorb that loss and bleed me dry. behind closed doors and not being completely transparent concerning the money is very disheartening to the people the internet should be a public service not a commercial property you hike rates up, it's not like we can really go to another internet if we are unsatisfied. and the internet is becoming more and more vital to life. don't raise the prices on .com please

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM price increases
by Chris Baird Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

The price increases for domain names that you recently announced will cause harm to individuals, businesses, and the Internet as a whole. The secrecy and the unchecked increases over the next several years will make .COM domans less accessible for everyone. These changes will have a significant impact on the Internet for years to come. It will also curtain competition and choice for registrars of .COM domains. Thank you for your consideration. Chris Baird Chris Baird Executive Support Specialist Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon Lillis 350 1208 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 Phone: (541) 346-4122 cbaird2(a)uoregon.edu<mailto:cbaird2@uoregon.edu>

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) I would like to submit the attached response to the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com amendment
by Denise Yennie Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, I don't usually take time to comment on very many issues, but this one needed my attention. That ICANN and Verisign are proposing increasing the cost of .COM domain names to ridiculous amounts, but that they are doing so in a bullying, secretive, monopolistic way is even worse. The .COM domain extension is truly the most known and has value for every business. I strive to get these TLDs for my and my client's businesses. Raising .COM prices and allowing bad actors (players that are squatting on perfectly good and usable .COM domains) significantly hinders all internet users from creating the next generation of great brands and expressing their voices on their own platforms. Please do not allow ICANN and Verisign to proceed with their proposal. Respectfully submitted, Denise Yennie

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Economic Analysis of the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Greg Rafert Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To Whom it May Concern, Please find attached my review, from the perspective of an economist trained in analyzing competition matters, of the proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. Best regards, Greg Rafert, Ph.D. CEO, Alpine Start Advising

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] You know this isn't ok
by Thomas Wright Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Why would the one organization that controls everything about anything concerning domain names, the literal bridge between most humans and content on the web, want to make that bridge cost just that much more for the average person? The internet is important to our progress as a species - and as always, money has found a way to corrupt and corrode freedom. It comes down to one single question: So what is in your hearts? Is it about following the sociopathic lead of the big faceless control freaks? Or are you in a situation that makes you uncomfortable, and you know what the moral choice is, but you're being pressured by powers larger than you, so you feel you have no other choice but to submit? If it's the latter, then at least your still human. And if you're still at least somewhat human, take that extra step and stand up for the rest of us that don't have any direct influence. You know increasing the prices will have a negative effect on a lot of people - and that will influence the economy - and that, in turn, will end up being a bad thing. This happens every time closed-door deals like this go down. So - do you want to be remembered as the conspirators that caused whatever socioeconomic crisis this is going to launch - or do you want to be remembered as those bad asses that actually stood up to the corporate pressures and told them to go stick a pig? Sincerely, * Thomas Wright* * Phobos Technologies LLC / Owner https://phobostech.in/ <https://phobostech.in/>* * [801] 916 3457*

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] (no subject)
by petr antonov Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

As a registrant of a .com domain name I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. Many thanks Petr Antonov

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price Increases Only Benefit One Party - Verisign(Monopoly?)
by will＠turncommerce.com Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. No one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices. Will Dozier Denver, Colorado United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Disagree
by Павел Рюмкин Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, I oppose the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement and the raising of prices on .COM domain names. Eric Townsend

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] roll back .com decision
by Rene Terhorst Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, This email is written on my personal behalf, not from my company which I am using now the email from. I do not agree with the contract on Verisign. I do have some .com domains, which are just for me and my family, or for the fun. At the time I got them, then these levels were only available (.net/.com/.org). Your policy mentions: A fundamental part of ICANN’s Mission<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/mission> is to coordinate policy development related to the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. As internet organization you should facilitate, without being commercial. Your website states that you are transparent: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/irp-en [cid:image001.png@01D5E37C.9EBA5880] So why would you need $ 20.000.000 from Verisign for the non-profit organization? And promoting competition is done through making thing cheaper and allowing multiple companies to set prices for .com domains. Not giving one commercial company all power. Also you state that you are transparent. But I cannot find why and how the deal was made and were this money would be spent on. So for now I do not trust this deal. And my opinion is that this deal should be cancelled. Kind regards, Rene Terhorst ================================ Rocket Software, Inc. and subsidiaries ■ 77 Fourth Avenue, Waltham MA 02451 ■ Main Office Toll Free Number: +1 855.577.4323 Contact Customer Support: https://my.rocketsoftware.com/RocketCommunity/RCEmailSupport Unsubscribe from Marketing Messages/Manage Your Subscription Preferences - http://www.rocketsoftware.com/manage-your-email-preferences Privacy Policy - http://www.rocketsoftware.com/company/legal/privacy-policy ================================ This communication and any attachments may contain confidential information of Rocket Software, Inc. All unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Rocket Software immediately and destroy all copies of this communication. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Concerns about Amendment 3 for .COM Registry Agreement
by Erin Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, The new proposal agreement with Verisign that allows for annual price increases to the prolific domain extension .COM is very worrisome. The .COM extension makes up 40% of all domains, making it the singular most common and familiar domain extension across the globe. One thing that makes the world wide web the wonderful place of wisdom, growth, and community is its accessibility. Any individual, any entrepreneur or start-up, or school program, etc, can add their voice to the internet simply by creating a place to house their knowledge. In recent years, it has become more difficult to afford hosting for this little piece of internet. With more-or-less mandatory SSL certificates for even barebone websites, paid WhoIS protection, and other such hurdles, it's getting increasingly harder for the "little guy" to enter this world. So much of a website's success and identity comes from a memorable domain name, and the .COM extension is clearly the easiest extension to remember. I personally own a handful of domains, all .COM extensions. I am a web developer working for a small design firm. When our clients ask for assistance with choosing domains, we exclusive suggest .COM extensions. I am skeptical on who this price increase would benefit and how it will effect the internet community. If the money isn't going back into the community, I feel this deal between ICANN and Verisign is pure bribery. I believe ICANN should more heavily consult the public and other experts, before settling on a deal that could be very harmful to the internet at large. Best, Erin Witzel

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

This appears to be monopolistic behavior. Built in price increases without any competition. On the surface it seems as though Verisign is buying off ICANN to help push these increases through. I believe the .COM registry agreement should be opened up for competition. Verisign should not be given carte blanche to raise rates. Amendment 1 had prices fixed through 2024. (rom the Effective Date through November 30, 2024, US $7.85;) We’re talking about Amendment 3, didn’t see anything regarding Amendment 2. Any price increases should not be allowed until after 2024 at worse. This contract should be opened up for bidding beyond Verisign. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement is a no-go
by Liz Hixon Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I definitely do not support the increase in price of .com domains. As a nonprofit, ICANN should be focused on the accessibility of the internet rather than filling their own pockets. Verisign should not be permitted to make this increase. Universal decisions such as this should not be made without consent from the public. It is clear that this is an underhanded decision. An increase in price will have multiple repercussions. It will be harmful to small businesses. It will reduce accessibility and visibility for individuals desiring to have their voice heard through outlets such as personal blogs. Liz Hixon digital product designer nukshuk.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Verisign Price Increase
by Bob Mountain Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, I strongly oppose the price increase that Verisign has requested. ICANN would be abandoning its responsibilities by allowing this increase. If ICANN's intent is to allow the free market to determine the appropriate price level for .com domains, the free market should also be allowed to determine the most qualified franchise is to operate the TLD. Allow the extension to be put out to bid to protect the consumer and the free market will do its job, working on behalf of the consumer, providing increased value for money over time. If Verisign were investing heavily to improve the product, you could see some merit in a price increase request. Instead, Verisign's spending has increased solely on executive compensation and stock buy backs. They are not improving the product and therefore have not earned the right to a price increase. Verisign is a well-run company with high quality talent, they do a great job running the registry. However the consumer is not well-served by awarding them a price increase, and by any measure of fairness for the consumer and value for money, this is a travesty. Bob Mountain 23 Orchard St, Belmont, MA 02478

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] THIS IS MADNESSS
by Nieca Cawley Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

.com already accounts for the 40% of the market share for the domains on the internet, why would you want to increase the associated costs? This is corporate greed!!! Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Public Comment on .COM RA Ammendment
by Zach Bialecki Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I strongly oppose the proposed amendments to the .COM Registry Agreement with Verisign. I believe they are anti-competitive and will harm website operators and domain registrars. Please re-consider and reject this one-sided deal. Thank you, Zach Bialecki

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, This is an outrage. Price should be deceasing, not increasing. 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. John Park San Francisco, California

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a domainer, investing in domain names as a business. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. No one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices, and increases benefit only Verisign. Verisign is already a highly-profitable company. There is no reasonable explanation to enrich them further at the expense of domain registrars and registrants. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. If the .COM registry management contract were put up for competitive bidding, a much lower price could be attained, which would truly be in the public interest. Instead, we have an anti-competitive system set up to benefit only Verisign and ICANN. 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. Bill Patterson Richardson, Texas United States ᐧ

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Against amendment
by Robert Blinov Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am against this amendment as it will drastically hike up prices for domains, which should be a public good. The internet used to be and still is a place where most things are free. Making prices higher means less competition, which in turn provides for less creativity and functionality in the web. I sincerely hope this amendment will not proceed. Robert Blinov

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am associated with the secondary market in domain names. 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. Cameron Cortez Arizona

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, It's important to keep the internet accessible by making sure that pricing is affordable for its users. The proposed amendment 3 would ensure that the internet is only for those privileged with enough financial resources to adjust to increased pricing and will make the web presence homogenous and controlled by a small number of people. Please keep .COM level domains affordable by avoiding price increases. Thank you, Nechari Riley

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposed to the .com rate increase
by Daniel Natyna Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am against the purposed rate increase to the .com domain. The general volume of the .com domains registered should be more than sufficient to cover the costs of maintaining the registry and security of the domain. The actions of Verisign and iCANN are in very poor taste, and looks like a bribe from one company, so the other can do as they wish at the expense of their customers. Daniel Natyna Canada

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, Regarding the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement, as an Internet user I'd like to take the opportunity to express my concerns from the following two aspects. *-- Change of Section 7.3(d) of the Agreement (Maximum Price)* .COM is undoubtedly the most recognized and widely used TLD in the world. Comparing with other gTLDs, it bears an outstanding characteristic as public resource. From information provided with the proposed amendment I don't see any pressing and reasonable need of Verisgn to raise the price of .COM. What kind of benefit or value whill the price hikes bring to end users like myself. If either Verisign or ICANN can provide any justification or clarification, please release them as soon as possible, otherwise I cannot find myself agreeable to the proposed price hikes under any circumstances. *-- Funding to Support ICANN's Initiatives* In light of the proposed price hikes, it seems very difficult for me to understand the motive of offering the fund and whether it can be used properly. ICANN has been working on preserving and enhanccing the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS for more than a decade. Why in all of a sudden it depends on Verisign to offer this additional amount of money? I believe the global community has the right to ask for more transparency from ICANN, not only on where this funding proposal came from, but also how it will be used and who will oversee its using. Sincerely, Asuka Nan

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Amendment 3 SUX!
by Jeffrey Willerth Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

As a citizen who has owned numerous .COM Registrations since the mid-1990s… I am deeply OPPOSED to you’re money-making scheme to push registrations fees through the roof and disrupt the wholesale registration business. IF I was aware that your operation costs were skyrocketing such that ICANN and Verisign might be on the verge of dissolution… I’m might be supportive of rate increases - far lower and more restrictive than what Amendment 3 currently offers. But that’s not the case. Your Amendment 3 plan is a money-grab. While you get to flirt in the marketplace outside the rules of being a “Utility”… THATS Exactly how you function in the real world and that’s what you are to the marketplace. Hell, you are little more than a Wedding Registry or Vintage Car Registry or a Registry for pure bred animals. So, pull you heads from your butts. Go spend 2020 rewriting Amendment 3 such that my dollars can only line your pockets when Top Tier and even the lesser tiers are so wild popular and affordable that all humans will register domains. Then you can have your fat money - the result of volume sales and increased pricing! Jeffrey Willerth Erthbound Entertainment

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN: I am writing to express my opposition to the changes proposed that will result in price increase for domain names. It is vital that domain names remain accessible to all. The low price of domain names has allowed the Internet community to thrive and develop. I am greatly concerned that losing access to inexpensive domain names will silence voices throughout our country, and I request that ICANN reconsider the proposed changes and maintain caps on domain name price increases. Thank you. Kind regards, ~ Alek

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Public Comment
by Josh Smith Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, I urge ICANN not to alter its contract with Verisign Inc. in ways that will allow for price increases for .COM domains. It is vital to our country that domain names remain affordable to people of all income levels, and the price increases of up to 70% that these proposed contract changes could allow. Please consider a change to this plan of action. Sincerely, Joshua Smith

1 0

[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

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I use the Internet but I am not a .com registrant. 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. T. Trinh Dallas

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price increases for "DotCom" top-level-domains (TLDs)
by Paul D. Bain Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

ICANN staff: I am a web developer who uses NameCheap as one of my Internet domain name registrars. I recently received an email from NameCheap that relayed these statements: > Last month, ICANN, the organization that oversees domain names, announced significant changes to the contract it has with Verisign, Inc.[, which ] operate[s] the .COM top-level-domain (TLD). > > ICANN made these changes in secret, without consulting or incorporating feedback from the ICANN community or Internet users. < snip, snip > > [Under] this new agreement, Verisign will be allowed to increase the wholesale price to registrars for .COM domains every year for 8 out of the next 10 years, and the increases don’t stop there. > > This will mean that .COM wholesale domain prices can grow by more than 70% over and above current prices over the next decade. The contract also allows for other price increases, which could drive prices up further, ultimately making .COM domains less accessible and more expensive for everybody. > > Why is ICANN doing this? > > Alongside these contract changes, Verisign agreed to pay ICANN an additional $20 million dollars over five years to support ICANN's domain name system initiatives, without any clarity about how ICANN will spend the money, or who will ensure that the funds are properly spent on domain infrastructure. If these statements from NameCheap are correct, then I am appalled at ICANN's actions and its lack of transparency and accountability to the public. If ICANN continues to operate in this manner, I shall petition my Senators and Congressman for redress and the reform of ICANN. Sincerely, Paul Bain (703) 870-5154

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I use the Internet but I am not a .com registrant. 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 thoai.trinh(a)datacommns.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to new contract for .COM domains between iCann and Verisign.
by Burt Thombs Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Please add my name to those who oppose this "new" deal that may cause .com domain costs to rise significantly. This has the potential to disrupt the way many people make a living and should have been a public forum prior to the contract being completed. Burt Thombs

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to Amendment 3
by Kara Barr Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a .com domain owner, and I oppose Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. This amendment would place an undue burden on many small business owners including myself. Please do not pass this amendment. Thank you. Kara Barr *(she/her)* karabarr295(a)gmail.com 414.610.1232

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by datphu sa 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 â€“ it has no business dictating the price. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Dat Phusa Orange, California United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by shabee 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. I say NO to this price increase. Shauna Millar Las Vegas, Nevada United States Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I use the Internet but I am not a .com registrant. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. I don’t own a .com domain name yet but will do in a few months to host my personal website. I want to use .com because it’s the most known domain name, I want my website to be hosted on a .com domain, but my website being a non-lucrative one, I don’t want the cost of owning a .com domain name to be to expensive, and increase every year… It has to be affordable for all to allow everyone to have its domain name. It’s essential. Marion Fassot Tours, Centre-Val de Loire France

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] In Opposition of Proposed Amendment 3
by Elliot Silver Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To Whom It May Concern: I am very concerned about the proposed price hikes for .com domain names. I do not believe this price increase is in the best interest of anyone but Verisign shareholders. It is certainly not in the best interest of .com registrants who will pay more - perhaps much more over the next several years - but receive nothing in return for the additional expense. I do not see any valid reason for why the wholesale price of .com domain names should be permitted to be raised. If anything, the cost of maintaining the registry should be decreasing. If that is not the case with Verisign, perhaps the registry should be put up for bid from other qualified companies. I believe if an RFP was put in place to manage the .com registry, other service providers would be able to offer .com domain names for a lower price. It does not make sense to me that ICANN appears to be looking out for Verisign's bottom line rather than the domain registrants that can only purchase and renew their .com domain names from Verisign. If ICANN does not protect domain name registrants from increasing prices, I do not think ICANN serves any useful purpose any longer. Respectfully, Elliot Silver

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Planned changes to the contract between ICANN and Verisign
by David Demchuk Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

My name is David Demchuk and I am a Canadian writer of fiction and drama for stage, film and television. I have my own .com website which I maintain through Squarespace. I have acquired my domain name, daviddemchuk.com, through an independent service. I am very strongly opposed to the planned changes to the contract ICANN has with Verisign. I do not believe the ensuing price increases or changes to Verisign's role are in the public interest.* I am especially concerned with the lack of consultation by ICANN with the larger internet community.* These arbitrary self-servicing changes potentially affection more than 100 million .com users, with no discernible benefits to us or to the internet community as a whole. Please note this opposition and discontinue these plans. Thank you, David Demchuk

1 0