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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] against the proposed price increase to .COM domains.
by Morphy Hu 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. Best regards Morphy

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Please don't make these changes. Pricing for these domains is high enough. If prices continue to rise, you will ensure that only the most successful of companies are able to afford com TLDs.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price caps for .com sites
by Cindy Martin Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

As a business owner seeking to utilize my .com site this year, I am absolutely against raising the cost of .com domains 8 out of the next 10 years! I just had my taxes done tonight and it’s incredibly ridiculous at the amount of taxes I will owe this year! Add to that the increasing cost of goods sold and supplies! Enough is enough... Sent from my iPhone

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains.No one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices and it make no sense as costs are going down not up.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 A.MaurielloLighthouse Point ---- John A. MaurielloDomainAssets.comPhone:786-586-9324Email: john(a)domainassets.com Skype: john.a.maurielloQQ: jmauriello(a)gmail.com (1944218414)WEchat ID : DomainAssets IMPORTANT NOTICEThis communication contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please (1) notify the sender and delete all copies from your system and (2) note that disclosure, distribution, copying or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. Email communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free from error or viruses. To the extent permitted by law, Domain Assets LLC do not accept any liability for use of or reliance on the contents of this email by any person save by the intended recipient(s) to the extent agreed in a Domain Assets LLC engagement contract. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this email which have not been delivered by way of the business of Domain Assets LLC are neither given nor endorsed by it.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I am against the payment and its associated price increases.
by Ricardo W Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

This change to the contract with Verisign has come up suddenly, and although I appreciate the comment period, I think that the decision to raise prices for .com domains is due to an influence from special interests and not the people themselves. Verisign’s $20 million payment to ICANN is not promised to do anything, and there is not much information forthcoming. To me, it seems like a cash grab, as the benefits of this have not been made clear. I am against this decision, and I hope you will use the feedback from actual (non-millionaire) people to stop this price increase. Sincerely, Ricardo G. Willems

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Stop the Price Increase!
by Dan Sandler Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

A price increase will only be detrimental to all small owners of .com properties. It will increase costs to maintain a site putting the ability to start a online business out of reach for many. It will also only increase url hoarders shares so they can further price gouge shoppers for specific .coms. Existing owners of .coms will not even reap a benefits from such an increase

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price increase
by Angie Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I oppose the plan to increase the price of .com domains. The increase is going to price individuals out of a way to create or maintain their businesses. Only large corporations will be able to absorb the cost of owning a domain. What are your plans for the additional funds you will be receiving? Will the extra funds benefit the owners of the domains, users of the internet or just line your own pockets? Are you trying to stifle entrepreneurs by pricing them out of the access to the internet even before they can begin their business journey? Its difficult enough to build a solid foundation and large following on the web without adding extremely high prices each year for maintaining a domain. You are going to price people out of the market before they even get started. Also, you could make it easier for individuals to comment on this matter. When I clicked on the "Submit Comment" button it opened my email without an address to send the message. Why are you being so tricky about this? What are you hiding? Angie

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] No price increases, please! You are hurting The Little People out here.
by InterpreterMan Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

The title says it all. Daniel Steve Villarreal, Ph.D. (萬丹青)Assistant Professor of English (MOE # 036823) Licensed Court Interpreter # 315 (Spanish-English, TX), Master ESL & Spanish instructor Spanish-to-English translation www.americanolderbrother.com https://tw.linkedin.com/in/daniel-steve-villarreal-ph-d-39a60077 https://t.vipkid.com.cn/?refereeId=3495217 <--Degreed North American native English speaker; interested in teaching English online? CLICK HERE!

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I don't want this to happen
by NutPanda Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

. Com is one of the biggest contributor to the world wide web making them expensive will hurt it's most owners. Kindly regulate this.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed amendment 3 to the .com registry agreement
by mk Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, As a private domain user, i want to contribute to the .com registry agreement. Here are my comments and propositions: Excluding to be ruled by a government law As .com is an international extension, Any ICANN registry agreement regarding .com should not be related with a government law. This means that verisign's cooperative agreement with the US government must be rejected. I a cooperative agreement is needed, this one should receive validation by the United Nations. opening competition There should be an opening competition in the .com registry agreement. Every 5 years, ICANN should open a competition for the .com registry agreement. protection against price increase / rules about prices Regarding this international extension Regarding the "one world one internet" ICANN's vision There should be a protection against price increase and rules about .com prices that take in count the world's differences. Populations of the world should not be excluded from registering a .com because of its high price. .com price is already too high for many poplulation in the world, keeping increasing this price will exclude more people. i suggest to fix a decent price that lets people all over the world being able to register a .com Thank you MK.

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I'm a registrant of several .com domains and I do not agree with the proposed price increases to .com domains. Any such decisions should be made in extensive consultation with the community. This decision should never have been made because the current price is already above what it needs to be, let alone any increase. Verisign clearly want more money and want unfair leverage in the marketplace. It's their prerogative to want that, but it is not right for you to agree to it. You are supposed to run the system in the community's interest, not theirs. Please do not go ahead with this proposed change.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN-Verisign LOI and the Third Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Michael Karagosian Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To Whom It May Concern, This letter is in response to the request for public comment on the ICANN-Verisign LOI and the Third Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement. My comments below are based on the knowledge of ICANN’s non-profit status and its statement on its website that “ICANN’s fundamental belief is that all users of the Internet deserve a say in how it is run." LOI The LOI doesn’t make good business sense and would give Verisign an unfair advantage as a domain name registrar. ICANN manages, but does not operate, root servers. If Verisign is to provide services that increase security of the root server system, then it should be ICANN who pays Verisign. Verisign already sells security services to the domain name owners and registrars. According to Verisign’s website: “Verisign operates the authoritative registries .com, .net, .name, .cc, .tv, .コム, .닷컴, .닷넷 and קום domain names, and provides domain registry services for .jobs and new gTLDs. Verisign does not register or renew domain names—we work with domain registrars to register domain names.” However, the LOI will give Verisign the new ability to register domain names, allowing it to compete with its customers and enage in anti-competitive behavior. The LOI will give Verisign the ability to underprice to the public similar services already offered by its domain registry competitors by overpricing its existing services to those same registrars. Nothing in the LOI prevents this. All things considered, there is no evidence that the $20M to be paid ICANN by Verisign is nothing more than a quid-pro-quo. It enables Verisign to unfairly compete with the domain name registries that rely on it, which would be worth much more to Verisign than $20M. Not named in the LOI, but coincident to it, is the Third Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement, which gives Verisign the ability to increase fees to its customers for .COM names by 7% a year. This is yet another gift in the quid-pro-quo in return for the $20M. Third Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement No explanation is given as to why Verisign has earned the right to increase .COM registry fees by 7% a year. If Verisign’s costs associated with security are increasing, why isn’t this stated, and why is Verisign depleting its valuable resources by paying ICANN the $20M per the LOI? Altogether, giving Verisign the right to operate as a .COM domain name registrar to the public, while charging competing .COM registrars service fees that increase 7% a year, is simply a formula for anti-competitive behavior. This is clearly not in the public interest. Both the LOI and the Third Amendment need considerable re-thinking and should not be executed as-is. With best regards, Michael Karagosian President MKPE Consulting

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition against .COM Price Increases
by Mark J Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear Sirs, As you know , we expect -if not facing already- global economic crises, and most of small business struggle to survive, and one of survival methods is to has voice on the internet. So by increasing the .COM price, you are participating in crippling those small business and push them to reduce costs & shut down and prevent others from using online business, which creates a butterfly effect that influence the whole world economy. Dear Sirs, maybe your self suffering from cash inflow, but solving a problem by making big problem isn't wise. So kindly , think again to keep the .com price. Best regards Mark https://www.almanypestcontrol.com/

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com price increases
by Ada Worcester Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

ICANN, I was recently made aware of your recent agreement with Verisign to allow them to increase prices significantly for .com registrations. In light of both the significance of the price hikes (far outstripping inflation) and the secretive nature of these negotiations, I cannot help but feel that this proposal must be rejected outright. ICANN is not a for-profit entity, and it must not be expected to maximize profit -- particularly not in its role as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. ICANN must instead act as a public service, for all users of the Internet, and seek to maximize the general good. And, of course, while it has no particular contractual obligations to, by any reasonable standard it ought to honor the memory of the previous Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, Jon Postel. Therefore, I ask again, that you back out of this agreement, and act in favor of the Internet, not Verisign. Sincerely, Ada Worcester Staff Site Reliability Engineer -- Red Canary

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

1. ICANN made its seal behind closed doors. 2. It has ignored a unified opposition. 3. Changes to the .com agreement will significantly affect businesses, especially small business like mine. 4. The agreement will have annual increases of more than two times the inflation rate, with no controls or oversite. This lacks fairness. 5. In the agreement, Verisign is paying ICANN $20 million over 5 years to support it's initiatives. No explanation given why. No explanation of how ICANN can spend the money. Or if funds properly spent.. 6. Verisign can operate as a domain registry. 7. Worst yet,. ICANN had ignored previous comments of supporters relayed to price controls. This is a lousy deal for small businesses. Verisign should not be allowed to operate the top level domain .com Thanks, Bill Kent Clearview Home Inspections Inc

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Mohd Bashar Iqbal 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 as the price increase would further increase the burdens on the normal individuals and small business owners which are the major registrants of .Com domains. It is just Verisign who wants increase .COM prices and they should just act like mere manager of the .COM Registry that is only for that they are for. They should not dictating the price of the .COMs. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Bashar Iqbal Delhi, India. -- *Bashar Iqbal* *bashariqbal(a)gmail.com <bashariqbal(a)gmail.com>*

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] The Need for an Affordable Internet
by Joey White-Swift Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear Sir or Madam, It is my opinion that the reason that the internet has been such the success that it has been is due to the ability of all to enter into it. If you have a neat idea, you can affordably create a space to be the next great product or service. The thing that everyone thinks of as a mark of this success is .com, that is to say that when people hear a .biz, .bb, .xyz, or even .net, they immediately have a lower connotation. They ask "Why don't they have a .com?" This may be due to phishing or scams over the years or the .com boom, but everyone thinks of the .com as the standard for safe, reputable business. While large companies can afford whatever you charge them, small businesses may be forced to spend their money on "lower quality" / secondary domain names and are more likely to be perceived as lower quality or not above bore. This is not to say that each domain name does not have a purpose, each does; it is to say that the collective perceived security of .com is fundamental to a thriving society and economy. In the past, non-root dns servers were set up to expand upon the options that you did not provide and forced you to even take some of the offered domain names into your fold. If you raise the prices on the fundamental domain names like .com, you may set yourself up for greater interest in such services again. If it was not clear already, I oppose the changes that you have proposed in the amendment and I hope you realize the deterrent they will cause, and urge you to do the right thing by terminating amendment 3. Thank you for your time, J. F. White-Swift

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Naseeb Panghal 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. Naseeb Rohtak

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I oppose the .com price increase
by Pat Hartary Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a .com registrant and I oppose the proposed price increases in .com domain names This is a money grab pure and simple. Costs would come down if public bids were allowed. Do not hurt business owners. large and small, by raising the cost of buying and renewing domain names for digital commerce. Stop the .com price increase now! Regards, Pat Hartary

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Need for transparency and price controls- drop the Verisign deal
by Ann Myers Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello Please provide details about the .com increase and your spending plans for the $20m from Verisign. Verisign being allowed to be a domain registrar will have a chilling effect on competition and allow them to drive up prices. I'm guessing this is why you are receiving $20m. Shady dealings behind closed doors, by a company that is a monopoly with complete control is disconcerting at best. ICANN should be the most transparent and neutral company there is, keeping the internet as open and cost effective as possible. Ann

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

This is a terrible idea. The low price of domain names is a huge reason for the egalitarian nature of the internet. Don't do this. David Gibbs

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Matt Gaspar 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. Matt Gaspar Los Angeles, California United States CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential information intended for the sole use of the addressee. If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the person above and delete the original message immediately.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Say no to price increase.
by Justin Tan Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] It is not fair to Price Increases for .com
by Nathaly Gallego Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

As an user o¡f the internet it is not fair to increase the prices of .com Internet should be a place where everybody can afford a domain to start a blog, a business an so on. Our voice has to be heard, stop with the issue of just making money and start thinking about people, in community -- - *Nathaly Gallego* *Entrepreneur* *Ecom & Digital Marketing Expert *

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com rate increases
by E Rubio Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am writing to let you know I oppose the rate increases for .com domains proposed by ICANN. I am a freelance writer, making my entire living by bringing in clients through my web presence. I make a modest living, under $50k per year. I own two domains—one for my freelance work, and one for my authorial work. My business has no budget; I am the business. A regular hike in .com domains will affect my ability to pay my bills, and might force me to cancel my domains, making me lose clients and income. Most of my clients are web-based as well, and this will hit their bottom lines, also affecting my income. ICANN is meant to encourage competition, but it has become a monopoly. The internet has become a public trust, and must be protected as such. Repeated price hikes spell the death of information. Signed, Elizabeth Rubio rubioedits.com rubiowrites.com

1 0