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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by admin＠ismy.blog Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Let Verisign collect a percentage of the sales prices from over-priced sellers and re-sellers, not from the existing .com registrants. E.g. Enom or one of its resellers charges $19.95 for a new .com, or Uniregistry wants to sell a .com with "premium" renewal prices, let Verisign have a percentage. We cannot afford it. I will be out of business. Next, you will be allowing all the other greedy registrars to overcharge us. Stand your position. And remember, affordable renewals is the reason most of us are in TheInternet.org business. How can I develop WebsiteDoctors.com for first responders or people without health insurance if I have to worry about registrars jacking my renewals? If ICANN allows Verisign to raise prices for existing registrants, ICANN will be on the defendant list with them. I am a registrant of many .com 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. DD Johnson Salt Lake City, Utah DDJohns(a)markter.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com price increases
by Normand Schafer Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

As the owner of a number of .com domains I am against the substantial price increases over the next number of years. 7% annual price increases is well above the average 2% rate of inflation. The .com domain should be protected as an affordable option for website holders. These proposed changes could be looked at a bait and switch tactic from .com domain holders who have trusted the .com domain as an affordable option and invested in creating their brands as .com domains. Normand Schafer

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Concern
by Nicole Harstead Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

40% of all domains are .com. The sort of price increases that are likely to occur with ICANN increasing its stronghold over .COM mean that many businesses will be damaged. There needs to be consultation. Improving competition should not mean stamping out small players. A healthy system is a diverse one. Give us a break ICANN. Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com changes
by Robin Monks Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Hi there, I am deeply concerned that VeriSign is being given the opportunity to further monetize their control of the .com domain. VeriSign has not shown themselves to be an organization in the public good; and further increasing the cost of communication in the world does not serve the public interest well. I write to request the newly proposal deal be abolished and another deal be structured only after public consultation. Thank you, Robin Monks

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] no prices raises on domains
by Warner Berkshire Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

To Icann Please do not raise prices on .com domains. The upkeep cost on these is already significant What are your reasons for considering raising the prices on them? The current cash flow receive from the registrars by the organization is already quiet high. Domain registrations and renewals should not be used to pay for some other administrative work not related to improving domain related activities. Thank you Mark Warner

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Zhang Xavier Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Dear Sir/Madam, This is Xavier from China. I am a domainer (I invest in domain names as a business). No one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Xavier Zhang Shanghai, China

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price increase
by Ciprian Cucuruz Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

This is outrageous! Financing a project in exchange of price increase is bribery in disguise. Doesn't Verisign make huge profits already from managing .com? Why so greedy!?

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Not okay
by Mike Wootton Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Your proposed amendment is a straight up bribe to benefit one company that will have large effects on 40% of the internet. This isn’t good regulation, and I’m farily certain it’s not ethical. Please reconsider and look out for the interests of the entire internet. Thanks, Mike. Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Bruce Devlin Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Dear sir, I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. They are already significantly more expensive that the price of domains in the UK an other TLDs that I register. Given the volume and level of automation involved, I can see no correlation between the charge to me and the underlying costs incurred. I am a registrant of several .com domain names. 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. If ICANN were providing other features to limit the cybersquatting and other domain name ownership issues, then I might be more accepting of a price increase. As it stands, it feels like exploitation of the internet community Bruce Devlin Chiddingfold, UK

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Do not raise prices
by David S Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Stop trying to make more money and just provide your service. Do not raise Prices

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Verisign Contract
by euthena＠gmail.com Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Please recognize my significant opposition to your secret changes to the Verisign deal effectively allowing higher domain costs to enable a secret transfer of monies to ICANN. Michael Goldstein 732-238-7171

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Please reject Verizon's proposal
by Nicole Sherburne Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Dear Sir or Madam, Please reject Verizon's proposal for wholesale price increases of .com domains and seek a new security certificate provider. It is unacceptable that there is no reasonable limit to any price changes for what is essentially a monopoly. Although I understand there are other TLD's available, there is no reason to give Verizon added funding with no added value. There are other providers of security certificates. Sincerely, Nicole Sherburne Accounting Systems Administrator * LKQ Corporation 5846 Crossings Blvd, Antioch, TN 37013-3129 (W) 615-600-3215 * (Cisco) 8102-3215 [LKQ-logo-sized]

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Rising price of domain registration
by kurthr＠apple.com Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Personally, this proposal to increase pricing and profitability of domain distribution makes me question the goals and stewardship of ICAAN. While the cost of providing the service and any amortized development/equipment costs continue to fall an increase in pricing without a substantial improvement in service or functionality seems only to serve monopolistic profit interests of particular government chosen private entities. I can not know the true motivation, but the appearance of impropriety is substantial without some well stated justification and promised improvement. I can not find a member of the community that supports this proposal. As shown by the sale/auction of corp.com <http://corp.com/> and other cases where outright theft of domains (apparently bypassing 2FA) continues apace domain registrars remain in the Wild West., It would appear that even basic market functionality is lacking. Little or no useful service is actually offered (that could not be automatically distributed in a cryptographic block chain or other trusted public database) other than the sale of an artificially scarce digital commodity by monopoly interests. Best luck, Kurth

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Against .com price rise
by maciozo Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Come on now, I doubt you lot are short on cash. Regards

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Troy Budge Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 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. Troy Budge Minneapolis, Minnesota United States Sent from my iPhone

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM PRICE INCREASE
by Brad Elaine Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

As a current paying subscriber, I have been made aware of unrestricted price increase possibilities by ICANN. As of this moment, I am happy with my current rate and usage program. However, I am aware that there are other options available and as I see rates rise beyond what I consider reasonable, I will quickly find other solutions to meet my budget requirements. Brad Young Realtor/Appr. Auctioneer 270-202-5397 bradkyoungrealtor(a)outlook.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Public Comment Against Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Tyler Thrailkill Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

To whom it may concern, I am against Amendment 3 in it's entirety. Allowing Verisign to operate as its own registrar will only serve to allow Verisign to run many smaller registrars out of business, after which they can then immediately spike their prices with no consequence, due to the other rules allowing them to change prices upward. If the reasoning is that Verisign will self police, we have significant evidence that businesses do not self police when given freedom to do what they want. On the whole, it appears that you accepting $20MM, with no earmarks as to what it is going to be spent on, or how Verisign benefits from the situation, is essentially a bribe of the highest form. This situation will obviously make much more than $20MM for Verisign and result in countless losses for consumers and registrars alike. Do not allow this Amendment to pass Tyler Thrailkill Senior Software Engineer 254.424.4553

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Reasons why .COM amendments should be rejected for both ICANN's and the publics sake
by Bruce and Kris Edwards Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name for personal use and I wish to comment on these proposed changes. The call for comments regarding the proposed changes that could result in (up to) 7% price increases per year for .com domains purports to be justified by being in the public interest. The summary fails to expound as to why this would be in the public interest or why this is necessary. The comments mentioned in the proposed amendments were vague and without more detailed supporting reasons, do not rise to a compelling reason. The fact that no compelling reason was given for this leads me to believe that Verisign has not given one. From what we can see with other wholesale providers, the cost to the wholesaler for .COM (In this case, Verisign) to support this should be substantially less than what they are wholesaling it for. Even with one 7% price hike on all of the .COM registrants, the extra money would be in the many 10s of millions of dollars just for that 7% portion of the cost. It is hard to understand what one 7% price hike would go towards (Let alone several more hikes in the future that are compounded ). Given that this is for a registration function, proposing this type of price increase for this service seems excessive and that would adversely affect personal and small business registrants in particular as well as set a precedence for open-ended price increases in general. This seems to be a poor reason to grant this change. It should be incumbent for those requesting this change to demonstrate why this is in the public good and how this would accomplish these goals. I would have expected more of an outreach by those proposing this change to those that would be affected by these changes (and price increases). This would be the transparent and reasonable step to take. Relying on the company that would benefit for price increases to set these rates without other relevant parties involved seems to be a poor approach. The second troubling aspect of this proposal (especially for ICANN), is allowing Verisign to be both the wholesaler of .COM domains as well as a Domain Registrar for .COM (directly or indirectly). Given that the .COM domain is by far the largest domain, this put Verisign in an anti-competitive position which would not serve those that rely on this service. The amendment states that you would rely on Verisign to set the rates and to have them dictating these changes at both the wholesale level and retail level. The possible advantages (since they wouldn’t have oversight) at the retail level, would create an environment that could be abused. International companies have been brought into court and sanctioned for similar anti-competitive practices. This might put ICANN into a position that could damage their reputation (As some might see ICANN as party to this agreement) as an impartial governing agency which would be something that no one wants to see. As a result of reading the summary I have come to the following conclusions. I have not found compelling reasons for these possible reoccurring larger price increases and no effort on the parties presenting these changes to justify these specific changes. The adverse effects that this could have on personal and small businesses without any documented positive benefits to the people using this service strikes me as a negative. The open-ended possible price increases is not a good model for many services as it bypasses justifying these increases to a larger audience that would be affected by these changes and finally allowing VeriSign to be both the wholesaler and retailer of the .COM domains without any safeguards to insure that VeriSign doesn’t have a benefit that other retailers would not have. In light of this, I would urge you to reject these amendments. Bruce Edwards bkedwards(a)edwardsbk.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Jamie Feola Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Hello ICANN team, Please amend your proposal to allow Verisign raise fees for .COM domains. You must consider the billions of internet users with less focus on company profit. The internet should be open source and affordable for all. Thank you, Jamie Feola

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM TLD Contract Changes
by Jonathan Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Hullo, I am writing today to express my displeasure with the changes to the .COM TLD contract your organization has with Verisign, Inc. Raising the price of .COM by a large amount over the next X years harms all of us normal people who use .COM domain names for various reasons, not just small business. In my region, a bunch of pinball players have recently bought a .COM just to promote local events. The .COM domain remains the "default" that people think off when you tell them you have a website. I'm not against modest increases but increasing 8/10 years for the next 10 years seems excessive. Maybe this could be toned down to 5/10 years on alternating years? Also, in a related issue, I feel the $20M over five years to support ICANN domain name system initiatives needs oversight. From what I've read, this is currently not the case. Thank you for your time, Jonathan Soon

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Louise Lee Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 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. Louise Vancouver, British Columbia Canada

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by jose castillo Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Ohhh please, think again this point, because are two reason for use dot com in domains 1st – people remind an usefull com page 2nd – if this com use cause more demand don´t increase, better think another solution may be, another same memotechnic term like site? Or web word Enviado desde Correo<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> para Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Against
by Brad Berline Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

This decision is not in the best interest of US consumers.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] It's about time.
by james garbe Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Sorry to all the domainers but I agree with increasing the price of .coms. They are the most valuable domains on the internet. There is a secondary market in which many of these domains are being resold for thousands and in some cases millions of dollars. People and companies are holding in some cases hundreds of thousands or millions of domains because they are so valuable but so cheap to own. This does not make sense when there are so many new domains that are not as valuable but cost more to own. Also, Godaddy and others are trying to keep this niche business to themselves reaping the profits at the expense of the rest of us through this monopoly. This low renewal pricing allows them and others to quite literally hold millions of the most valuable .com domains hostage to the rest of the world selling them at whatever price they can extract from potential buyers. They actively seek out and purchase valuable .com domain portfolios from individuals and companies to add to their giant inventories and protect their monopoly. When the new domains came out on mass Godaddy would sell them to you but at the time refused to let you offer them on their platforms for re-sale in the aftermarket because the vast inventory of .com domains they owned would potentially become less valuable in this after market. There would also be a threat if the general public started to prefer the new domains to .coms thus again affecting the price of .coms in the aftermarket. Godaddy did eventually change their stance on this but only in a limited way. Godaddy would favor large customers like Huge Domains who owns millions of .coms and manipulate and exploit smaller customers without the financial resources to do anything about it. Godaddy and other’s have created a monopoly of the most valuable .com domains and are only apposing this increase because they want to protect their .com inventory pricing as well as their large customers and are not really looking out for the general consumer. What are we talking about, perhaps a $3 increase in total for a .com over the next four years? This will not impact the general public purchasing a single .com or even several in a very negative way. As a matter of fact I don’t think the general public will pay that much attention to it. The only people complaining are Godaddy and the others involved in this monopolistic aftermarket business. If you own a 100,000 domains or millions of domains the cost will be noticeable and in some cases significantly noticeable. It is time to bring this monopoly into the light and expose it for what it is. I fully support this increase!!! James Garbe sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Reject Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Tony Reynolds Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

To whom it may concern, I work for a company that invests in domain names and provides services to registered domain owners. My livelihood and that of dozens of other families of employees of my company rely on the stable pricing of domain names. Verisign has oportunistically slipped this amendment past during an understaffed and corrupt political administration that is blindly seeking to overturn regulations that affect US companies. The NTIA is such an entity in the US government that should not be responsible for regulating pricing of an internationally important commodity such as the .com registry. Verisign's costs have declined dramatically in recent years as it's profits have risen steeply. They obtained their contract to manage the .com registry without a competitive bidding process, and they have renewed it the same way. Even worse, amendment 3 gives them full unchecked control of the terms of the contract in the future, allowing them to operate the registry without a contract if they decide not to agree to future terms. Verisign did not invent the DNS system, they simply won a contract to operate it as a steward. They are a company comprised of former lobbyists and politicians and have gotten to where they are by using their considerable political pressure. They are not acting in the best interest of the internet community or the world - only of their shareholders. The US is not supposed to "own" the internet anymore, but this feels like a major step backwards. Anthony Reynolds Denver, Colorado USA

1 0