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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Changes to Verisign’s contract with ICANN
by Brian Jaynes Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I want to express my opposition to the changes proposed for the agreement with ICANN that would allow unacceptable price increases for top level domain registration of .COM URL’s. Verisign should not be allowed to resell .COM site registration and should not be allowed to set the prices increases allowed by the new Greement. Thank you, Brian Jaynes

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM price increase
by Herr Drone Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I'm opposed to it
by Robert Obando Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I don’t agree with the deal, the costs of actually processing the domains is getting lower, and the deal only wants to benefit a monopoly and get a piece of pie for ICANN, just because the current rules were set by another administration is not a valid reason, that’s a vendetta, ICANN should keep as non profit and protect the internet, not their pockets. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I'm opposed to the deal
by Robert Obando Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I don’t agree with the deal, the costs of actually processing the domains is getting lower, and the deal only wants to benefit a monopoly and get a piece of pie for ICANN, just because the current rules were set by another administration is not a valid reason, that’s a vendetta, ICANN should keep as non profit and protect the internet, not their pockets or a company operating in monopoly. Kind regards

1 0

Re: [Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN
by Rodney Moore Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Please do not raise rates for .com domains because it impacts self-employed individuals and small businesses who need .com domains. Thank you, Rod M. Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] COM price increase
by Armin Cobo Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear Sir or Madam, The price increases put additional strain on the creative expression of the online community. Please reconsider if there is a better or more stable way. Thank you and have a nice day. Best regards, Armin Cobo

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I do not agree with the changes
by Raul Leyte Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

ICANN, Amendment 3 only serves for the benefit of Verisign and ICANN itself and not to the benefit of .com owners. The proposed changes will make domains less accessible and the change is not acceptable. ICANN will allow Verisign to increase prices for the next 8 years. It is suspect that ICANN is allowing and proposing this change following a 20 million capital infusion from VeriSign. Please cancel this amendment and make an amendment that owners need to vote for any future changes to the rules and regulations. Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Everyone needs to look at Verisign's Financials - its numbers are extraordinary - only one that a monopoly can achieve. Verisign's financials sourced by S1 filings. Absolutely absurd as there is zero justification for any price increase!
by Don Smith Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Base of .com domain names: 2009 -- 86.0 million 2010 -- 93.7 million 2011 -- 101.6 million 2012 -- 108.5 million 2013 -- 114.3 million 2014 -- 119.0 million 2015 -- 126.6 million 2016 -- 131.3 million 2017 -- 135.0 million 2018 -- 142.0 million 2019 -- 145.4 million Verisign's price it charges per .com domain per year (keep in mind historically, Verisign has increased its prices at every opportunity permitted): 2009 - $6.42 2010 - $6.68 2011 - $7.34 2012 - $7.85 2013 - $7.85 2014 - $7.85 2015 - $7.85 2016 - $7.85 2017 - $7.85 2018 - $7.85 2019 - $7.85 Verisign's revenues: 2009 - $615,947,000 2010 - $680,578,000 2011 - $771,978,000 2012 - $873,592,000 2013 - $965,087,000 2014 - $1,010,117,000 2015 - $1,059,366,000 2016 - $1,142,167,000 2017 - $1,165,095,000 2018 - $1,214,969,000 2019 - $1,231,661,000 Verisign's costs to operate the registry: 2009 -- ($455,989,000) 2010 -- ($448,295,000) 2011 -- ($442,589,000) 2012 -- ($416,265,000) 2013 -- ($436,855,000) 2014 -- ($445,690,000) 2015 -- ($453,420,000) 2016 -- ($455,595,000) 2017 -- ($457,373,000) 2018 -- ($447,577,000) 2019 -- ($425,534,000) While wholesale .com prices have been capped at $7.85 since 2012 for consumer protection, Verisign's operating income has soared: 2009 - $159,958,000 2010 - $232,283,000 2011 - $329,389,000 2012 - $457,327,000 2013 - $528,232,000 2014 - $564,427,000 2015 - $605,946,000 2016 - $686,572,000 2017 - $707,722,000 2018 - $767,392,000 2019 - $806,127,000 Verisign's Net Income: 2009 - $87,931,000 2010 - $58,152,000 2011 - $141,141,000 2012 - $322,728,000 2013 - $323,953,000 2014 - $355,347,000 2015 - $374,241,000 2016 - $441,185,000 2017 - $457,760,000 2018 - $582,619,000 2019 - $612,489,000 Verisign employees fewer employees than ever before: 2009 - 1,100 2010 - 1,048 2011 - 1,009 2012 - 1,099 2013 - 1,079 2014 - 1,061 2015 - 1,019 2016 - 990 2017 - 952 2018 - 900 2019 - 872 Operating Margin: 2009 -- 26.0% 2010 -- 34.1% 2011 -- 42.7% 2012 -- 52.4% 2013 -- 54.7% 2014 -- 55.9% 2015 -- 57.2% 2016 -- 60.1% 2017 -- 60.7% 2018 -- 63.2% 2019 -- 65.5% With 69.6% non-GAAP operating margins and 65.5% GAAP operating margin in 2019 -- Verisign's financials are remarkable. Why is any rate hike justified? Verisign is realizing the benefits of economies of scale on a growing base of domain names. On top of a perpetual contract to operate the .com registry -- which excludes all forms of competition at the registry level. Competition ultimately benefits consumers -- and when ICANN is going in the opposite direction and allowing Verisign to increase its prices by 31% over the next 4 years -- it will result in a windfall of additional profits for Verisign -- without any justification. ICANN - what is your justification for price increases? -D

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Disagree with decision
by tyler.cookson＠gmail.com Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I would like to thank Namecheap for even making people aware of this dealing. I completely disagree with ICANN's decision and wish my comment here to be added to those that also disagree with the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. Sincerely, Tyler C.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN's deal with Verisign and .COM Price Increases
by Nicole Williams Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Hi, I have three domains that end in .com and find the possibility of those domains' registration cost going up as much as 70% in the next decade extremely disquieting. What is the purpose of ICANN's deal with Verisign? Why would they sell out domain owners for $5M? This is a terrible idea and I hope that enough public comments and common sense gets through to ICANN's decision-makers, so that this this possible change can be scrapped before it is enacted and harms millions of .com domain owners. Nicole Williams

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Strongly against price increases for .com domains.
by Joseph Rousseau Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Hello, As the owner of an IT business, I am strongly opposed to the newly proposed contract changes that allow for price increases to .com domains. Thanks, Joseph Rousseau Founder - Panda Rocket Punch, LLC

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com prices
by Mike Gregoric Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I disagree with your attempt to increase pricing on .com Mike Gregoric Table Rock Marketing

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Concerns about Verisign contract changes
by Timothy Venezia Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Hello, I find the proposed changes to your contract with Verisign extremely alarming. There is potentially some very valid reasons for price increases to domains, such as freeing up domains bought up in bulk with the propose of reselling with a markup. However, there is much to be worried about in terms of general accessibility and the specifics of these changes. In particular, there is at the very last the appearance of some major conflict of interest. Some of these concerns were demonstrated to me by my domain registrar, NameCheap: 1. Price Increases Verisign will be allowed to increase the wholesale price to registrars for .COM domains by 7% each year in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. After a two year “freeze”, Verisign can increase prices by 7% annually during 2026-2029, then another two year “freeze”. This cycle will continue, meaning that within 10 years, .COM domains could cost approximately 70% more than the current wholesale price of $7.85 — and the sky is the limit. It is not clear how much of these price increases registrars will pass along to consumers, but it is likely that most of these increases will be paid by domain name registrants. The contract does allow for other price increases for certain extraordinary situations, so it is possible prices could increase more than anticipated. 2. ICANN Will Receive an Extra $20 Million With the contract changes, Verisign agreed to pay ICANN an additional $20 million dollars over five years to support ICANN’s initiatives regarding the security and stability of the domain name system. There is no explanation why Verisign did this, how ICANN will spend the money, or who will ensure that the funds are properly spent. 3. Verisign Can Operate as a Domain Registrar ICANN also had rules that the operator of a TLD could not operate a domain name registrar. Although in 2012 ICANN allowed operators of new gTLDs to have domain name registrars, it did not apply to Verisign. The new contract will allow Verisign to operate its own registrar, except for selling .COM domain names itself. To circumvent this, it is also possible that Verisign could act as a reseller of .COM domains, through another registrar. This result is that the company that controls almost 80% of the registrar pricing for domain names will compete directly with all domain registrars, maximizing its control of domain name pricing to the detriment of other competing registrars. While this might result in lower prices to consumers, fewer registrars will harm competition, choice, and domain name services. Verisign’s registrar could also use its dominant position to charge higher prices to consumers, while at the same time raising registrar prices. 4. ICANN Ignored Previous Comments As detailed on Standing Up to ICANN to Keep Domain Prices in Check <https://www.namecheap.com/blog/ensuring-icann-keep-domain-prices-in-check/> and pricecaps.org <http://pricecaps.org/>, over 3,500 comments were submitted in support of price controls for the .ORG, .INFO, and .BIZ TLDs. Only six comments supported removing price controls. ICANN discounted the comments that were in favor of maintaining price caps. A number of the comments were submitted using an online tool, which caused the comments to be discounted as “spam” by the ICANN Ombudsman. ICANN removed the price caps, primarily relying upon a biased preliminary analysis from 2009 by an economics professor that did not reference any data.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Against Price Increase
by Oona Breyer Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

I’m writing to voice my opinion against price increases for the .com domains. The internet is something that is vital for equal access for all people. The moment we start unchecked price increases we begin to discriminate against people who don’t have the financial means to access and make their voice heard. We MUST be more responsible than to make decisions based on financial gain or what works for some when it comes to something as important as the internet. I urge you to reconsider the long term affects of this and do what’s right. Thank you for your time. Oona Breyer Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to Proposed Amendment 3
by Craig Lindley Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Good morning: I am writing as an individual and small business owner to voice my strong opposition to Proposed Amendment 3. The only beneficiary to this amendment is clearly Verisign, at the expense of the public. The global DNS registration system is a critical piece of the the internet infrastructure and should be run primarily as a public concern. The web and global DNS were envisioned to be run for the public good. This attempt at profit chasing is obvious, will serve as a detriment to individuals and small business owners, and is in clear opposition to the founding mandate and vision. Please do not adopt this proposal. Sincerely, Craig Lindley Tucson AZ

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] pricing increases
by John Chiasson Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

As a small business owner I use a .com domain. Allowing compounding price increases over time without justification will be a detriment. If the cost of registering TLD's needs to increase due to inflation, that is understandable. In that scenario, the increase should be tied to the inflation rate, not an arbitrary percentage. Regards, John Chiasson john(a)blueskydivers.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] No increases
by Shawn R. FitzGerald Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

If there were competition among operators of the same TLD space, the market would regulate pricing and the Internet would be safe from wild and varied price changes. But that's not what we have. Instead, Verisign has been granted a monopoly on the .COM TLD space, and so competition cannot temper prices. With this proposal, Verisign will be able to increase pricing, unchecked, to levels that will have noteworthy impact on both small business and enterprise. It cannot be allowed. In the absence of competition, costs must be kept as low as possible. Allowing this increase would be abuse. -- Shawn R. FitzGerald shawn(a)srfitzgerald.com 412-921-2468

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price increases in .com domains
by Hisham A. Ghaith Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear Sir's It is amazing that you wish to increase the prices so drastically by capitalizing on the monopoly created between ICAAN and Verisign. These price increases are neither justified nor correct. No one should be allowed to have such a monopoly on anything, let alone being allowed to apply drastic unjustified price increases. We hope you never succeed in this endavour, and maybe some day soon your monopoly will be broken Hisham Ghaith

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com changes
by Tyler Higley Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

To whom it may concern, I urge and plead with you at the same time not to raise the cost of .com domains. It may put more money in the pockets of a few executives to increase the price, but that will subsequently put further strain on countless average people who are already trying their best to make a living and not be price gouged everywhere we go! Best, Tyler

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Dot Com increase
by DANA ROSCOE Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Any price increase has a huge effect on the end user and Web owners. That should be considered before any price changes are made. In my opinion. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Domain name increase
by Kevin Kiejko Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 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. Verisign is has a monopoly on .com registrations. It is an unfair abuse of power for the price to go up so much when the actual cost of providing the service continues to decline. Kevin Kiejko

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Do not raise prices
by Joshua Zader Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

This back-room deal between ICANN and Verio to raise prices is bad for consumers. As an industry professional, I stand firmly opposed. Joshua Zader

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Andrew Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Since the 1990s, I am and have been a registrant of many .com domain names. I strongly oppose the proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. As a California nonprofit public-benefit corporation, ICANN is required to act in the public's best interests while pursuing its mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier system. Increasing the wholesale rate for .com domain name registrations from the current rate of $7.85 is not in the public's best interest and not necessary for ICANN to pursue its mission. The proposed amendment to allow annual price increases of 7% has no reasonable basis and is not associated with anticipated cost increases on the part of Verisign. While the current rate of $7.85 has been frozen since 2012, the costs of domain name registry operators and domain name registrars has been decreasing. If anything, the freeze should be made into a permanent rate cap and the rate should DECREASE. By all appearances, Verisign will be paying $20M USD to ICANN as a bribe to persuade ICANN to allow Verisign to significantly increase the wholesale .com rate and, thereby, significantly increase Verisign's profits. Over the years, I have served as a board member on multiple nonprofit boards. If this amendment is approved, ICANN's board of directors should be ashamed of themselves. Sadly, ICANN's relationship with Verisign and other registry operators appears to be a classic case of "regulatory capture", where the organization (or government agency) that is supposed to regulate an industry ends up being "captured" by that industry and serving the interests of the industry rather than the public interest. If ICANN and its Board of Directors truly cared about the public interest, ICANN should take a close look at its relationship with Verisign and evaluate whether Verisign is the best organization to continue serving as the .com domain name registry operator. I would be shocked if a competitive RFP process did not result in identifying another, reputable organization that would commit to providing a better level of service than Verisign at a lower .com wholesale rate. In fact, if ICANN is seeking additional capital (under the belief that ICANN needs additional funding to pursue its mission), I expect the organization identified in such an RFP process would even agree to make ongoing financial contributions to ICANN that exceed the $20M payment Verisign would be making under the proposed amendment. Sincerely,Andrew Hanna Commonwealth of VirginiaUnited States of America

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] No to Amendment 3
by Alex Paradowski Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

No to Amendment 3 Alex Paradowski 2554 Waterman Ave Granite City, IL 62040 314.440.8072 alex(a)alexparadowski.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Sleazy price increase
by Keith Conner Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

The proposed price increase is very sleazy. Sincerely Keith Conner

1 0