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

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. Akintola Seun Samuel Lagos, Nigeria. ᐧ

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Amendment and Commentary Criticism
by Kevin Edwards Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To Whom It May Concern, > "ICANN org is not a price regulator and will defer to the expertise of > relevant competition authorities." If you have been limiting wholesale registrar's prices and are now allowing higher prices, then you are, by definition, a price regulator or price fixer. > "to support ICANN’s initiatives to preserve and enhance the security, > stability and resiliency of the DNS" Was that already part of your mission or is that mission creep beyond basic name assignment? In either case, you should clarify what exactly requires more money and how it will be spent, if you want public support. It wouldn't be bad for ICANN to stop regulating prices if the result would be a properly competitive free market that naturally seeks lower prices for independent services, but the market is basically a monopoly at your level and Verisign is paying you to let them raise prices on other people. As an aside, I have a friend whose self-named domain: stephaniewohar.com was hijacked or drop caught by Chengdu west.cn for unrelated spam purposes, and it would have cost her upper hundreds or thousands of dollars to recover, so I'm not particularly impressed with the cost effectiveness or current structure of your monopoly. Kevin Edwards

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] don't raise prices
by M T Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

please don't raise .com prices. it's not sustainable to everyone that isn't big business. I want my own website for my business for the solid fact i don't want to go through a middleman who can absorb that loss and bleed me dry. behind closed doors and not being completely transparent concerning the money is very disheartening to the people the internet should be a public service not a commercial property you hike rates up, it's not like we can really go to another internet if we are unsatisfied. and the internet is becoming more and more vital to life. don't raise the prices on .com please

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .COM price increases
by Chris Baird Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

The price increases for domain names that you recently announced will cause harm to individuals, businesses, and the Internet as a whole. The secrecy and the unchecked increases over the next several years will make .COM domans less accessible for everyone. These changes will have a significant impact on the Internet for years to come. It will also curtain competition and choice for registrars of .COM domains. Thank you for your consideration. Chris Baird Chris Baird Executive Support Specialist Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon Lillis 350 1208 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 Phone: (541) 346-4122 cbaird2(a)uoregon.edu<mailto:cbaird2@uoregon.edu>

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] RrSG response to Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Zoe Bonython Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) I would like to submit the attached response to the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] .com amendment
by Denise Yennie Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, I don't usually take time to comment on very many issues, but this one needed my attention. That ICANN and Verisign are proposing increasing the cost of .COM domain names to ridiculous amounts, but that they are doing so in a bullying, secretive, monopolistic way is even worse. The .COM domain extension is truly the most known and has value for every business. I strive to get these TLDs for my and my client's businesses. Raising .COM prices and allowing bad actors (players that are squatting on perfectly good and usable .COM domains) significantly hinders all internet users from creating the next generation of great brands and expressing their voices on their own platforms. Please do not allow ICANN and Verisign to proceed with their proposal. Respectfully submitted, Denise Yennie

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Economic Analysis of the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Greg Rafert Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

To Whom it May Concern, Please find attached my review, from the perspective of an economist trained in analyzing competition matters, of the proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement. Best regards, Greg Rafert, Ph.D. CEO, Alpine Start Advising

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] You know this isn't ok
by Thomas Wright Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Why would the one organization that controls everything about anything concerning domain names, the literal bridge between most humans and content on the web, want to make that bridge cost just that much more for the average person? The internet is important to our progress as a species - and as always, money has found a way to corrupt and corrode freedom. It comes down to one single question: So what is in your hearts? Is it about following the sociopathic lead of the big faceless control freaks? Or are you in a situation that makes you uncomfortable, and you know what the moral choice is, but you're being pressured by powers larger than you, so you feel you have no other choice but to submit? If it's the latter, then at least your still human. And if you're still at least somewhat human, take that extra step and stand up for the rest of us that don't have any direct influence. You know increasing the prices will have a negative effect on a lot of people - and that will influence the economy - and that, in turn, will end up being a bad thing. This happens every time closed-door deals like this go down. So - do you want to be remembered as the conspirators that caused whatever socioeconomic crisis this is going to launch - or do you want to be remembered as those bad asses that actually stood up to the corporate pressures and told them to go stick a pig? Sincerely, * Thomas Wright* * Phobos Technologies LLC / Owner https://phobostech.in/ <https://phobostech.in/>* * [801] 916 3457*

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

As a registrant of a .com domain name I am against the proposed price increase to .COM domains. Many thanks Petr Antonov

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Price Increases Only Benefit One Party - Verisign(Monopoly?)
by will＠turncommerce.com Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a registrant of a .com domain name. No one other than Verisign want increases in .COM prices. Will Dozier Denver, Colorado United States

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Disagree
by Павел Рюмкин Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Oppose Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Eric M. Townsend Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, I oppose the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement and the raising of prices on .COM domain names. Eric Townsend

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] roll back .com decision
by Rene Terhorst Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, This email is written on my personal behalf, not from my company which I am using now the email from. I do not agree with the contract on Verisign. I do have some .com domains, which are just for me and my family, or for the fun. At the time I got them, then these levels were only available (.net/.com/.org). Your policy mentions: A fundamental part of ICANN’s Mission<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/mission> is to coordinate policy development related to the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. As internet organization you should facilitate, without being commercial. Your website states that you are transparent: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/irp-en [cid:image001.png@01D5E37C.9EBA5880] So why would you need $ 20.000.000 from Verisign for the non-profit organization? And promoting competition is done through making thing cheaper and allowing multiple companies to set prices for .com domains. Not giving one commercial company all power. Also you state that you are transparent. But I cannot find why and how the deal was made and were this money would be spent on. So for now I do not trust this deal. And my opinion is that this deal should be cancelled. Kind regards, Rene Terhorst ================================ Rocket Software, Inc. and subsidiaries ■ 77 Fourth Avenue, Waltham MA 02451 ■ Main Office Toll Free Number: +1 855.577.4323 Contact Customer Support: https://my.rocketsoftware.com/RocketCommunity/RCEmailSupport Unsubscribe from Marketing Messages/Manage Your Subscription Preferences - http://www.rocketsoftware.com/manage-your-email-preferences Privacy Policy - http://www.rocketsoftware.com/company/legal/privacy-policy ================================ This communication and any attachments may contain confidential information of Rocket Software, Inc. All unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Rocket Software immediately and destroy all copies of this communication. Thank you.

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Concerns about Amendment 3 for .COM Registry Agreement
by Erin Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, The new proposal agreement with Verisign that allows for annual price increases to the prolific domain extension .COM is very worrisome. The .COM extension makes up 40% of all domains, making it the singular most common and familiar domain extension across the globe. One thing that makes the world wide web the wonderful place of wisdom, growth, and community is its accessibility. Any individual, any entrepreneur or start-up, or school program, etc, can add their voice to the internet simply by creating a place to house their knowledge. In recent years, it has become more difficult to afford hosting for this little piece of internet. With more-or-less mandatory SSL certificates for even barebone websites, paid WhoIS protection, and other such hurdles, it's getting increasingly harder for the "little guy" to enter this world. So much of a website's success and identity comes from a memorable domain name, and the .COM extension is clearly the easiest extension to remember. I personally own a handful of domains, all .COM extensions. I am a web developer working for a small design firm. When our clients ask for assistance with choosing domains, we exclusive suggest .COM extensions. I am skeptical on who this price increase would benefit and how it will effect the internet community. If the money isn't going back into the community, I feel this deal between ICANN and Verisign is pure bribery. I believe ICANN should more heavily consult the public and other experts, before settling on a deal that could be very harmful to the internet at large. Best, Erin Witzel

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

This appears to be monopolistic behavior. Built in price increases without any competition. On the surface it seems as though Verisign is buying off ICANN to help push these increases through. I believe the .COM registry agreement should be opened up for competition. Verisign should not be given carte blanche to raise rates. Amendment 1 had prices fixed through 2024. (rom the Effective Date through November 30, 2024, US $7.85;) We’re talking about Amendment 3, didn’t see anything regarding Amendment 2. Any price increases should not be allowed until after 2024 at worse. This contract should be opened up for bidding beyond Verisign. Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement is a no-go
by Liz Hixon Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I definitely do not support the increase in price of .com domains. As a nonprofit, ICANN should be focused on the accessibility of the internet rather than filling their own pockets. Verisign should not be permitted to make this increase. Universal decisions such as this should not be made without consent from the public. It is clear that this is an underhanded decision. An increase in price will have multiple repercussions. It will be harmful to small businesses. It will reduce accessibility and visibility for individuals desiring to have their voice heard through outlets such as personal blogs. Liz Hixon digital product designer nukshuk.com

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Verisign Price Increase
by Bob Mountain Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Dear ICANN, I strongly oppose the price increase that Verisign has requested. ICANN would be abandoning its responsibilities by allowing this increase. If ICANN's intent is to allow the free market to determine the appropriate price level for .com domains, the free market should also be allowed to determine the most qualified franchise is to operate the TLD. Allow the extension to be put out to bid to protect the consumer and the free market will do its job, working on behalf of the consumer, providing increased value for money over time. If Verisign were investing heavily to improve the product, you could see some merit in a price increase request. Instead, Verisign's spending has increased solely on executive compensation and stock buy backs. They are not improving the product and therefore have not earned the right to a price increase. Verisign is a well-run company with high quality talent, they do a great job running the registry. However the consumer is not well-served by awarding them a price increase, and by any measure of fairness for the consumer and value for money, this is a travesty. Bob Mountain 23 Orchard St, Belmont, MA 02478

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] THIS IS MADNESSS
by Nieca Cawley Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

.com already accounts for the 40% of the market share for the domains on the internet, why would you want to increase the associated costs? This is corporate greed!!! Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Public Comment on .COM RA Ammendment
by Zach Bialecki Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I strongly oppose the proposed amendments to the .COM Registry Agreement with Verisign. I believe they are anti-competitive and will harm website operators and domain registrars. Please re-consider and reject this one-sided deal. Thank you, Zach Bialecki

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, This is an outrage. Price should be deceasing, not increasing. 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. John Park San Francisco, California

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am a domainer, investing 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, and increases benefit only Verisign. Verisign is already a highly-profitable company. There is no reasonable explanation to enrich them further at the expense of domain registrars and registrants. The current rate of $7.85 is already far more than justified. If the .COM registry management contract were put up for competitive bidding, a much lower price could be attained, which would truly be in the public interest. Instead, we have an anti-competitive system set up to benefit only Verisign and ICANN. 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. Bill Patterson Richardson, Texas United States ᐧ

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

1 0

[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Against amendment
by Robert Blinov Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

I am against this amendment as it will drastically hike up prices for domains, which should be a public good. The internet used to be and still is a place where most things are free. Making prices higher means less competition, which in turn provides for less creativity and functionality in the web. I sincerely hope this amendment will not proceed. Robert Blinov

1 0

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

Feb. 14, 2020

I am associated with the secondary market in 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. Cameron Cortez Arizona

1 0

Re: [Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement
by Nechari Riley Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

Hello, It's important to keep the internet accessible by making sure that pricing is affordable for its users. The proposed amendment 3 would ensure that the internet is only for those privileged with enough financial resources to adjust to increased pricing and will make the web presence homogenous and controlled by a small number of people. Please keep .COM level domains affordable by avoiding price increases. Thank you, Nechari Riley

1 0

[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