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

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

Feb. 12, 2020

Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement I'm a quadriplegic on a limited income. I have a small personal website and also a small nonprofit organization both with .COM domain names. If you were to raise the prices of .COM significantly as it sounds like it is going to be, I would no longer be able to afford these. I have had my personal website for 23 years and my NPO for 10 years, if I had to change them from .COM to something else to save money it would take many years to get my NPO back in the search engines and would have to change my email addresses on so many websites that I would not remember them all. Please reconsider allowing such price changes for .COM Thank you, Dan Badur (Fishing Abilities, Inc.)

1 0

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

Feb. 12, 2020

Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement I'm a quadriplegic on a limited income. I have a small personal website and also a small nonprofit organization both with .COM domain names. If you were to raise the prices of .COM significantly as it sounds like it is going to be, I would no longer be able to afford these. I have had my personal website for 23 years and my NPO for 10 years, if I had to change them from .COM to something else to save money it would take many years to get my NPO back in the search engines and would have to change my email addresses on so many websites that I would not remember them all. Please reconsider allowing such price changes for .COM Thank you, Dan Badur

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to Price Increase
by Rob Davis Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Concerning: .com Price Increase Opposition I voice my opposition to your very existence in terms of the way that it is being organized, operated upon, and managed in a biased method by individuals that seemingly have too many connective compromises as it relates to their positioning assignments and the duties they are entrusted to uphold. The naked and transparent weaponization of this organization and platform is in fact seen by those who exist both in and outside of the operating realities that you take for granted. The special fund assignments, luxurious participation benefits, unscrupulous transitional planning, and mechanisms by which you work to achieve your long term objectives are on the wrong side of positive transformation. It should force intelligent reflection on exactly why past actions of the US Department of Commerce and its respective leadership chose to follow the path they did for oversight relinquishment. I would also bring attention to the notable absence of resistance and public opposition from some of the key leaders in the domaining sector. Especially those that we have again entrusted and helped loyally build over two decades. There is no glory in the intentional creation and manufacturing of additional burden to the millions of people who have been subjected to rely on the internal ethics and integrity of your management. Compounded by the fact that the subject Party that would benefit most from price increases was but an extension of critical infrastructure assurance in the first place, operating outside of transparent inclusion for free and open market participation. They cannot and should not be integrated into your organizational actions to produce added liquidity that is ultimately then distributed to a select few individuals. The handling alone of many of the facets related to thousands of new registry creations should bring further light onto your management competencies. Specifically your inability to forecast the need for any form of protective guidelines regarding recommended price increase thresholds as the most basic consumer protection mechanism. Or to rationally anticipate what free reign of operation would do in stimulating literally millions of new domain creations each year - issued at free or low cost to private users - who would then utilize them in wholesale fashion to grossly expand an already unprecedented rate of hostile attacks that can achieve outbounds as high as 15 billion individual spam attacks daily. This adds to a long and growing list of egregious deficiencies being coordinated under your watch. Including changes by which you would directly protect and limit the responsibilities of active registrars, especially those involved in the routine provision of domain privacy services to the worst of repeat offenders. Your actions illogically increased response times in the fight against denial-of-service and spoofing attacks being deployed against responsible business owners. They also extend and compound the rate of effectiveness for mass coordinated attacks that would utilize web addresses as an active delivery method. Your management and decisions made there would reduce the actions registrars are required to take, at the same time you drive more mandatory privacy allowances. In a world where every second of delay counts, your continued policy actions reveal a great many things as it relates to where your priorities rest. Your leadership direction has in turn also handicapped many of the world's intelligence services to react quickly and swiftly against digital threats. This impact of gross oversight and managerial negligence leads to millions of dollars of compounded damages against a global productivity basis every hour of every day. Yet your priority looks to satisfy shareholders, long term colleagues, and even direct friendships as you would serve to let profiteering further damage small business owners, hobbyists, collectors, and the millions of individuals who have freely participated together to build one of the greatest resources and collectives in human history. Shame on you. If you really feel the need to experiment with social engineering constructs, may I recommend two concepts for you that can be easily employed for short, mid, and long term improvements. 1. Eliminate privacy services all together, as they serve little functional use accept to protect against mass spam and attack campaigns by abusers. Transparency of ownership details will in turn lead to more efficient options to greatly reduce the level of spam attacks already in existence. The concept of transparency is already being addressed and implemented as a logical baseline for many social media platforms, as in some cases millions of false accounts have already been identified and deleted. Transparency to reduce harmful activities should be the minimum standard and expectation that we set for ourselves digitally, especially in our efforts to marginalize and help prevent billions of attempts of fraud, phishing, spoofing, and the harmful delivery of many levels of threats and viral distributions that happen each and every day. The alternative is to see fraud-centered spam grow to the point of needing more radical solutions to contain it. The Internet has been weaponized by a small handful of bad actors, who recognize that sending 10-15 billion threatening emails a day is reducing our ability to tackle real problems that exist. It impacts us emotionally, reduces productivity, elevates stress and anxiety, products a steady drip of individuals that reflect an image of theft and corruption, and unfortunately aids to diminish (and bury!) the real encouragements, messages, and connections we should be reviewing. An option for highly outspoken opponents who have the right to demand for privacy freedom, and feel that open transparency in itself is something they cannot support: make it available to them with two-step authentication for initial setup. The objective here is to cut down the millions of attempts made every minute to defraud others, and ultimately a high ratio of success is better than spending precious moments focused on enhancing Verisign's liquidity. Innovation and creativity will open much greater doors in the long run than lobbyist influence. 2. The second not-so-radical approach that should be implemented immediately as a point of logical common sense: run a simple deep index across every domain registration that exists. It is a number, it is a simple exercise, and one that can be coordinated with basic keyword overlays as well as secondary link extractions to build models that are directly being used (by the millions) as delivery agents to threaten online users in this world. In plain terms: if there are roughly 400 million domain names in existence, you can identify 25 million of them within a month that are being used illegally to harm our world at the costs of billions of dollars in gross productivity losses every week. Identify them. Double authenticate the nefarious purposes of their use. Delete them. Then take a look at the small number of registrars who are at large used as facilitation points to conduct this harmful activity, and how ICANN's policy adjustments have actually compounded the rate of abusive users online, not detracted from them. If I had two other points I would share: 1. If Verisign is in trouble and needs the boost, have one of our super billionaires write a check for 115 million domains x the increase proposal, place it in a trust, and let it pay out over the proposed implementation period as an offset to help 80 million people who trusted smart policy makers. 2. Then ask the major email platforms out there to spend some of their vast gross riches and fortunes to invest into instant, accessible, and intelligent methods to counter fraud and corruption being implemented almost in majority through their singular email provisions. There is no reason that spoofed emails (by the millions daily!) leading back to active Gmail addresses should ever exist longer than 30 seconds from reporting. I don't care who's uncle died and left them a fortune. Robert Davis | Intelliname | twitter.com/Intelliname

1 0

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

Feb. 12, 2020

Dear ICANN, I am a registrant of a .com domain name. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. Yours sincerely, Robert Nisbet Robert Nisbet Grunewaldstraße 56 10825 Berlin Germany

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by David Loewy 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. David Loewy Falls Church, VA

1 0

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

Feb. 12, 2020

I am a domainer (I invest in domain names as a business). I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. No one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. zheng tianbing Shenzhen 发送自 Windows 10 版邮件<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>应用

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Regarding .COM amendment 3
by j. calderone Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I am submitting this message to state I strongly oppose the raising of prices for .COM addresses. Not only was this change decided without consulting or incorporating feedback from the ICANN community or internet users, this change would do significant harm to individuals and small businesses without limitations on how much registrants can be charged over a period of continuing yearly price increases. There is also no transparency how ICANN will use their extra $20 million from Verisign or who will ensure these funds are properly spent. ICANN needs to listen to the voices of those whose livelihoods these changes will drastically affect. Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM Price Hike not necessary now
by Peter Ome Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

The decision to hike the price of .COM domain is very unnecessary. The parties involved should please reconsider their decisions and stands for the good of the internet world and the information age. Proceeding with that decision will cut a whole lot of people off from information and Technology and that's backward movement. Let's help the world access the internet more. Thank you

1 0

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

Feb. 12, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. I just happened to notice from the project that the prices should be increased significantly. That is insidious especially that no one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. Regards Kevin Broselge

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Do not allow .com domain price increases
by JASPAL SINGH Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Hi, Request you to kindly reconsider the decision to allow .com domain price increases. This price increase does not help the internet grow and prosper. It will be detrimental to common users who rely for their businesses to be known by their websites. Once these price increases are in effect, the common users will have no balancing force on their side to help ensure they are not forced into paying large annual fees just to maintain their online brand identity. Please reconsider and remove the price increase. Act as the balancing force and help the internet grow. Best

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I oppose the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by David Adams Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I oppose allowing Verisign to increase the wholesale price to registrars for .COM domains. Since 2012, the infrastructure costs related to administering the domain name system have all declined. Other top level domains are available in the market for $2.50 or less. The only justification for increasing the wholesale price of .COM domains is to extract rents from businesses that have no choice but to comply. Since a .COM domain is an essential part of a business’ identity, moving to a less expensive domain isn’t a reasonable alternative. -- David Adams 801-598-2217

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] My Opinion on the Proposed .Com Price Increase
by Scott Gerber Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Nobody likes their costs of doing business to increase. Was there an increase in the cost of computers processing domains ??? Or do the people processing domains just think that they're entitled to more money ??? -- Scott

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] against price increase
by Jake Muzzy Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I am against the price increase. Jake Muzzy

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] My Opinion on the Proposed .Com Price Increase
by Hari Sudhan Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Hi, I am small business owner. I am thriving very hard in my life to run a business which give me less revenue and run the family at the same time. It will be very hard to run my business or family, if any one of the operating cost increased by 30%+ Kindly consider and don't increase the domain owing cost. Thanks Mitais.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Aijaz Balkhi 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. 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. Aijaz Balkhi ITSSN.com Los Angeles, California United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] In support of price controls
by Jesse Lamas Calvillo Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I support price controls and price caps for TLD's. Please do not discount the opinions and needs those who use the internet. Many of the businesses here in Southern Spain don't operate with large operational profits. As online presence becomes even more important, getting squeezed by pricing increases to simply exist online is difficult. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Jesse Calvillo Jesse Lamas Calvillo [jesse(a)cooperativalaunion.com]

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] YOUR CONTRACT CHANGES WITH VERISIGN
by Leslie Sheridan Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I DO NOT AT ALL LIKE OR AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND THAT YOU ARE DOING IT SECRETLY BEHIND THE BACKS OF CONSUMERS! PLEASE END THIS! ICANN, the organization that oversees domain names, announced significant changes to the contract it has with Verisign, Inc. who operate the .COM top-level-domain (TLD). ICANN made these changes in secret, without consulting or incorporating feedback from the ICANN community or Internet users. Although ICANN has a history of making similar deals behind closed doors, and also of ignoring unified opposition against such action, we are focused on leading the fight against price increases that will harm our customers (and the Internet as a whole). According to this new agreement, Verisign will be allowed to increase the wholesale price to registrars for .COM domains every year for 8 out of the next 10 years, and the increases don't stop there. This will mean that .COM wholesale domain prices can grow by more than 70% over and above current prices over the next decade. The contract also allows for other price increases, which could drive prices up further, ultimately making .COM domains less accessible and more expensive for everybody.Why is ICANN doing this? Alongside these contract changes, Verisign agreed to pay ICANN an additional $20 million dollars over five years to support ICANN's domain name system initiatives, without any clarity about how ICANN will spend the money, or who will ensure that the funds are properly spent on domain infrastructure. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en/mail_for m?utm_source=Iterable <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en/mail_fo rm?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Service_DomCPIv3_202002 10> &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Service_DomCPIv3_20200210 ______________________________ Did you know that a recent UN study on climate change said that we have 11 years before planetary failure? Let that sink in! If you or someone you know is/wants to be an impact investor in a one-of-a-kind, world-scale solution to reversing climate change, ask me about Planet Cents. ________________________________________ Before us lie two paths - honesty and dishonesty. The shortsighted embark on the dishonest path; the wise on the honest. For the wise know the truth; in helping others we help ourselves; and in hurting others we hurt ourselves. Character overshadows money, and trust rises above fame. Honesty is still the best policy. ~ Napoleon Hill Cheers ~ Leslie13a (3) Leslie Sheridan Trailblazer, Rainmaker & Coach The Added Edge The Catalyst for Win/Win Consulting in . . . Human Resources, Marketing, Sales & Catalytic Coaching <http://www.theaddededge.com/> www.TheAddedEdge.com P.O. Box 726, Clearlake, CA 95422-0726 707.995.1034 <mailto:Leslie@TheAddedEdge.com> Leslie(a)TheAddedEdge.com Linkedin Profile: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/lesliemsheridan> http://www.linkedin.com/in/lesliemsheridan SKYPE: leslie.marie.sheridan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Come to the edge," she said. They said, "We are afraid." "Come to the edge," she said. They came. She pushed them . . . And they flew. ~Guillaume Apollinaire (with me replacing "he" with "she!") ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P For the sake of our planet, please don't print this unless necessary.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] My Opinion on the Proposed .Com Price Increase
by Rudy Soltesz Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Raising prices for .coms is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've have heard in awhile. Why? If you raise prices, I'll just start getting rid of my 20 or so .coms I already pay for each month and don't use. I hold on to them in hopes of one day turning them into some types of businesses. This would hurt every small business. The prices have already risen, so why raise them again? Don't do it!!!

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] comments about .com price increase proposal
by Brian Minton Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I think 7% a year is pretty high. And no cap seems especially unreasonable. I have several .com domains and it would be prohibitively expensive if the cost was allowed to increase annually. I think it would have a chilling effect on .com domain registrations, and push people to other top-level domains instead.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Raising fees without raising service is taxation without representation.
by A. Walton Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Just stop the nonsense. Profiteering for the sake of profiteering is bullshit. Domain names are a service, and that service should be fairly and equitably operated, full stop. Stop the nonsense. -Andrew Walton.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] I'm sure that's a bad idea
by Maga Alkhasov Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

Increasing price almost like just because, seriously? Very great idea from behind close doors for making internet less comfortable, that's what it is.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comment on Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Paul McKee Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

It is proposed that Verisign be allowed to increase .COM registration fees by 7% per year for four out of six years. This is excessive. I very much doubt that the costs of running a database of some 140 million registrations are rising anywhere near that fast. It wouldn't surprise me if the technological costs are actually falling, though there are certainly non-technology costs (like salaries) as well. In short, Verisign should be allowed price increases only in line with inflation, not more. Thanks, Paul McKee Bellevue, WA, USA

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com price increase
by Jim Braunstein Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

I am strongly against ICANN's contract changes with Verisign. These contract changes will likely drive domain prices up further, ultimately making .COM domains less accessible and more expensive for everybody. This will be potentially catastrophic for the micro businesses that currently use .COM extensions for their websites and rely on these websites to conduct business. Jim Braunstein President Bravo Zulu LLC www.bravozulullc.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Juan Pablo Rodriguez 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. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Juan Pablo Rodríguez Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires F.D. Argentina

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to proposed amendment No. 3
by Karen Deckert Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

ICANN and Verisign, I oppose the proposed amendment 3, as it gives you as a monopoly wholesale operator the ability for substantial price rises well in excess of CPI. If anything your wholesale prices should be falling because of greater economies of scale, and you can reinvest the difference into security and updates. There has been insufficient cause shown for the proposed amendment and just looks like a huge financial windfall for Verisign and ICANN. The amendment should be withdrawn. Regards,Karen

1 0