- 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