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

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposed to the .com rate increase
by Daniel Natyna Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am against the purposed rate increase to the .com domain. The general volume of the .com domains registered should be more than sufficient to cover the costs of maintaining the registry and security of the domain. The actions of Verisign and iCANN are in very poor taste, and looks like a bribe from one company, so the other can do as they wish at the expense of their customers. Daniel Natyna Canada

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Comment on the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Asuka Nan Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, Regarding the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement, as an Internet user I'd like to take the opportunity to express my concerns from the following two aspects. *-- Change of Section 7.3(d) of the Agreement (Maximum Price)* .COM is undoubtedly the most recognized and widely used TLD in the world. Comparing with other gTLDs, it bears an outstanding characteristic as public resource. From information provided with the proposed amendment I don't see any pressing and reasonable need of Verisgn to raise the price of .COM. What kind of benefit or value whill the price hikes bring to end users like myself. If either Verisign or ICANN can provide any justification or clarification, please release them as soon as possible, otherwise I cannot find myself agreeable to the proposed price hikes under any circumstances. *-- Funding to Support ICANN's Initiatives* In light of the proposed price hikes, it seems very difficult for me to understand the motive of offering the fund and whether it can be used properly. ICANN has been working on preserving and enhanccing the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS for more than a decade. Why in all of a sudden it depends on Verisign to offer this additional amount of money? I believe the global community has the right to ask for more transparency from ICANN, not only on where this funding proposal came from, but also how it will be used and who will oversee its using. Sincerely, Asuka Nan

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Amendment 3 SUX!
by Jeffrey Willerth Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

As a citizen who has owned numerous .COM Registrations since the mid-1990s… I am deeply OPPOSED to you’re money-making scheme to push registrations fees through the roof and disrupt the wholesale registration business. IF I was aware that your operation costs were skyrocketing such that ICANN and Verisign might be on the verge of dissolution… I’m might be supportive of rate increases - far lower and more restrictive than what Amendment 3 currently offers. But that’s not the case. Your Amendment 3 plan is a money-grab. While you get to flirt in the marketplace outside the rules of being a “Utility”… THATS Exactly how you function in the real world and that’s what you are to the marketplace. Hell, you are little more than a Wedding Registry or Vintage Car Registry or a Registry for pure bred animals. So, pull you heads from your butts. Go spend 2020 rewriting Amendment 3 such that my dollars can only line your pockets when Top Tier and even the lesser tiers are so wild popular and affordable that all humans will register domains. Then you can have your fat money - the result of volume sales and increased pricing! Jeffrey Willerth Erthbound Entertainment

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN: I am writing to express my opposition to the changes proposed that will result in price increase for domain names. It is vital that domain names remain accessible to all. The low price of domain names has allowed the Internet community to thrive and develop. I am greatly concerned that losing access to inexpensive domain names will silence voices throughout our country, and I request that ICANN reconsider the proposed changes and maintain caps on domain name price increases. Thank you. Kind regards, ~ Alek

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Public Comment
by Josh Smith Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, I urge ICANN not to alter its contract with Verisign Inc. in ways that will allow for price increases for .COM domains. It is vital to our country that domain names remain affordable to people of all income levels, and the price increases of up to 70% that these proposed contract changes could allow. Please consider a change to this plan of action. Sincerely, Joshua Smith

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry
by Thoai Trinh 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. Thoai Trinh Austin , Texas United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Strongly object to the amendment
by Saranam Mark-Greenberg Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I strongly object to this amendment and the private negotiation between ICANN and Verisign that will result in dramatic price increases for .com domain names. Agreements like this, affecting the many .com domain owners, such as myself, should not be made by !CANN without input from those many domain owners. I am aware of Verisign's promise to pay ICANN 20 million dollars. This amendment and the associated agreement with Verisign seriously calls in question ICANN's credibility and integrity as a regulatory organization. Sincerely, Mark Greenberg United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Unnecessary price increases in .COM domains must not be allowed
by Kian Moretz Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN Public Comment Technical Issues
by Keven Dabney Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

(Text Version Below) Please see the attached PDF for a better graphical example of what is broken. --------------------------------- Keven Dabney Internet Professional February 14, 2020 Subject: ICANN - MAJOR ISSUE with this public comment process - there is a MAJOR TECHNICAL FLAW that is rendering all external links to the wrong postings! Desired Resolution: ICANN should immediately stop removing public comments and extend the public comment period to allow for the problem to be addressed. Description of Issue: We would like to bring ICANN’s attention a significant bug with the ICANN public comment process. This is making the system impossible to use and it is not allowing stakeholders to read and digest information that is being submitted with other stakeholders on the Internet, in blog postings, and via email. It is making last minute submissions to the process nearly impossible as the IDs are constantly changing! When comments are removed (or deleted) from the system by ICANN, all comments shift down by an ID. Say for example you have seven postings (this example is used for illustration purposes with fictitious ids and fictitious names): ---------000100.html---------Amy Agnew ---------000101.html---------Betty Becky ---------000102.html---------Cathy Charles ---------000103.html---------Dennis Dean ---------000104.html---------Ernie Emmerson ---------000105.html---------Fannie Famous ---------000106.html---------Greg Garrett When ICANN (for some unknown reason) deletes a posting, it “shifts” all of the other postings numbers up by one. Thereby citing a previous posting and linking to it is impossible, making the public comment period buggy, problematic and extremely difficult to use. When the third post above is removed (or deleted), all comments beneath it “shift down” therefore completely hiding the post by “Cathy Charles” and thus every ID beyond it is no longer linkable or citable. In the above example we get this result: ---------000100.html---------Amy Agnew ---------000101.html---------Betty Becky ---------000102.html---------Cathy Charles---------(Deleted By ICANN) ---------000102.html---------Dennis Dean-----------*Id changed by Cathy’s deletion ---------000103.html---------Ernie Emmerson--------*Id changed by Cathy’s deletion ---------000104.html---------Fannie Famous---------*Id changed by Cathy’s deletion ---------000105.html---------Greg Garrett----------*Id changed by Cathy’s deletion First off: Who is removing these postings? By which criteria are they being removed? Is there a public log or record of the removed postings? More importantly, we immediately request that ICANN stop removing postings. It is breaking the entire public comment system and does not allow anybody else to see what someone has said with a direct link to the particular posting. ICANN also has a duty to extend this public comment process - as it is clearly broken and it is making all external links reference an entirely different public comment. This would give respondents, including myself, the time to properly cite prior postings which have now all been messed up and don’t allow links I have been reading to work or point at the right locations anymore! It is unfair and unjust, it is broken, and it is a mess! Preventing many last minute submissions. The URL’s and the ID numbers should not be changing! Please fix postings from disappearing and being replaced by others, while other legitimate comments now don’t have a permanent URL that is easily referenceable and/or addressable. More importantly, I need additional time due to ICANN’s blunder here in order to submit my final submissions. Thank you. - Keven

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, I CANNOT believe you want to do this. if you want to drive people away from .com, jus go ahead. People are not stupid. In the end everyone will lose out because of… greed. Thanks but no thanks for Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement Best regards, Edward Carr

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] This is absurd
by pedro＠pedrorotoli.com Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Not a fiar decision
by Jorge A. Chavaco Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hi, I don't think it's a fair decision for domain names to be increased without taking the customer's opinions or concerns into consideration. I really hope you reconsider this decision otherwise I'd be forced to closed many of the .com domains I have registered for so many years. Thank you for your time and consideration to reverse this decision. Sincerely, Jorge Martinez

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by thoaidt 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. Thoai Duc Trinh Los Angeles, California United States Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Disappointed in .com price increase
by Bluehat Dave Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

The internet works best when it is open to all. This decision reinforces monopoly power to the detriment of society. -- BlueHat Dave bluehatguru(a)magfest.org "Resource Management" Department Head Space Marine

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM Price increases
by Jordan Gehman Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Please do not make changes that will allow the prices of .COM domains to increase. They are an affordable option compared to others. Jordan

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I use the Internet but I am not a .com registrant. 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. T. Trinh Dallas

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price increases for "DotCom" top-level-domains (TLDs)
by Paul D. Bain Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

ICANN staff: I am a web developer who uses NameCheap as one of my Internet domain name registrars. I recently received an email from NameCheap that relayed these statements: > Last month, ICANN, the organization that oversees domain names, announced significant changes to the contract it has with Verisign, Inc.[, which ] operate[s] the .COM top-level-domain (TLD). > > ICANN made these changes in secret, without consulting or incorporating feedback from the ICANN community or Internet users. < snip, snip > > [Under] 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. If these statements from NameCheap are correct, then I am appalled at ICANN's actions and its lack of transparency and accountability to the public. If ICANN continues to operate in this manner, I shall petition my Senators and Congressman for redress and the reform of ICANN. Sincerely, Paul Bain (703) 870-5154

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I use the Internet but I am not a .com registrant. 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. Thoai Trinh thoai.trinh(a)datacommns.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to new contract for .COM domains between iCann and Verisign.
by Burt Thombs Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Please add my name to those who oppose this "new" deal that may cause .com domain costs to rise significantly. This has the potential to disrupt the way many people make a living and should have been a public forum prior to the contract being completed. Burt Thombs

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Opposition to Amendment 3
by Kara Barr Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a .com domain owner, and I oppose Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. This amendment would place an undue burden on many small business owners including myself. Please do not pass this amendment. Thank you. Kara Barr *(she/her)* karabarr295(a)gmail.com 414.610.1232

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by datphu sa 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 â€“ it has no business dictating the price. ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest. Dat Phusa Orange, California United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by shabee 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. I say NO to this price increase. Shauna Millar Las Vegas, Nevada United States Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I use the Internet but I am not a .com registrant. I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. I don’t own a .com domain name yet but will do in a few months to host my personal website. I want to use .com because it’s the most known domain name, I want my website to be hosted on a .com domain, but my website being a non-lucrative one, I don’t want the cost of owning a .com domain name to be to expensive, and increase every year… It has to be affordable for all to allow everyone to have its domain name. It’s essential. Marion Fassot Tours, Centre-Val de Loire France

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] In Opposition of Proposed Amendment 3
by Elliot Silver Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To Whom It May Concern: I am very concerned about the proposed price hikes for .com domain names. I do not believe this price increase is in the best interest of anyone but Verisign shareholders. It is certainly not in the best interest of .com registrants who will pay more - perhaps much more over the next several years - but receive nothing in return for the additional expense. I do not see any valid reason for why the wholesale price of .com domain names should be permitted to be raised. If anything, the cost of maintaining the registry should be decreasing. If that is not the case with Verisign, perhaps the registry should be put up for bid from other qualified companies. I believe if an RFP was put in place to manage the .com registry, other service providers would be able to offer .com domain names for a lower price. It does not make sense to me that ICANN appears to be looking out for Verisign's bottom line rather than the domain registrants that can only purchase and renew their .com domain names from Verisign. If ICANN does not protect domain name registrants from increasing prices, I do not think ICANN serves any useful purpose any longer. Respectfully, Elliot Silver

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Planned changes to the contract between ICANN and Verisign
by David Demchuk Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

My name is David Demchuk and I am a Canadian writer of fiction and drama for stage, film and television. I have my own .com website which I maintain through Squarespace. I have acquired my domain name, daviddemchuk.com, through an independent service. I am very strongly opposed to the planned changes to the contract ICANN has with Verisign. I do not believe the ensuing price increases or changes to Verisign's role are in the public interest.* I am especially concerned with the lack of consultation by ICANN with the larger internet community.* These arbitrary self-servicing changes potentially affection more than 100 million .com users, with no discernible benefits to us or to the internet community as a whole. Please note this opposition and discontinue these plans. Thank you, David Demchuk

1 0