news Icann Verisign comment period on .com price increase

Sutruk said:

I mean this comment:


It was not worth to be published here:

https://tldinvestors.com/2020/02/at-this-stage-com-should-be-1000-a-year-to-hold.html

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Keith is not the only person who wants higher regs, or doesn't care. I think $1,000 is way out there, but one commenter mentioned $100.

Others own Verisign and don't have a problem with increases. The biggest misconception I have seen over the years is everyone thinks we are all on the same team. The same agenda and same end goal. Simply not true. Many people own domain names and invest/trade for different reasons.

Lox said:

Over 70% comments @ ICANN are Copycat ... and it looks like they're doing their best to copy the most used template. Those who cannot express their minds in an unique/creative way cannot change anything.

Good Luck!

Regards

Click to expand...

Good point and those idiots might use that to say it was spam.

equity78 said:

I respectfully disagree. Keith is not the only person who wants higher regs, or doesn't care. I think $1,000 is way out there, but one commenter mentioned $100.

Others own Verisign and don't have a problem with increases. The biggest misconception I have seen over the years is everyone thinks we are all on the same team. The same agenda and same end goal. Simply not true. Many people own domain names and invest/trade for different reasons.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know there's people supporting everything in this World. Even for the strangest things. Anyway, I respect your point of view of course

equity78 said:

Good point and those idiots might use that to say it was spam.

Click to expand...

I've even noticed some of comments using an anonymous email providers to post ... the easiest way to blow up credibility ...

equity78 said:

I respectfully disagree. Keith is not the only person who wants higher regs, or doesn't care. I think $1,000 is way out there, but one commenter mentioned $100.

Click to expand...

Again, I was just throwing out a number for a different point of view. $100 would seem fair though.

There is, as I see it, some logic to the argument that if prices were higher it would make the digital asset worth more. As I see it though there are two difficulties with a very high figure (quite apart from fact virtually everyone would go out of domaining).

1. If the sell-through rates were even 2%, then a registration/renewal cost of $1000 per year implies just to break even domain retail prices have to average $50,000 per domain name, more when some account is made for other costs and any profit. Almost the entire retail market would disappear, we would only have the huge companies and everyone else would hand register, and probably not in .com.
2. Even if it was agreed that the rate should be $1000, why is it that Verisign, who did not create .com, but are its caretaker, as awarded by the US Government and ICANN approval, without an open bid process, should be the ones to make a huge profit? It would be like I manage a rental building. Arguments are that rents should go way up. I get all that money for managing the building.

Bob

Edit: I wrote this before the preceding adjustment to $100. At a 2% sell-through rate and $100 per year average prices obviously would need to be $5000 to break even, but with investment risk allowance for reasonable profit, and other holding and sales costs, probably substantially more. Possibly feasible.

It’s really a supply and demand issue. Anyone when given the chance to own .com vs .whatever will almost always take it.

In any other industry, price reflects demand. Domains should be no different. You get what you pay for.

Keith said:

It’s really a supply and demand issue. Anyone when given the chance to own .com vs .whatever will almost always take it.

Click to expand...

Agree Keith that it is highly desirable and many would want it. I think why so many feel that there is something wrong here is that it was not put out to any kind of tender or competitive bid, but simply extended.

Supply and demand could certainly support some significant rise in annual .com prices before much of a dent in registrations (not sure how much, maybe $25 or $30?). But if this was to be deliberately done, surely others should have been allowed to put in proposals? Where should that money have gone?

Possibly ironically, and perhaps relevant, a significant rise in .com and .org prices will benefit to some degree the general purpose country code and some of the new registries.

In the new gTLD situations the companies had to in general outbid each other, pay substantial fees to ICANN, and take the risk of starting something new and unproven. None of those applied to Verisign and .com, in my opinion.

Bob

Keith said:

Again, I was just throwing out a number for a different point of view. $100 would seem fair though.

Click to expand...

I did point out to the commenter that he was wrong, he came back telling me no I was wrong, but with the additional info he left, I see he meant @Keith DeBoer which I pointed out to him was not you.

equity78 said:

I did point out to the commenter that he was wrong, he came back telling me no I was wrong, but with the additional info he left, I see he meant @Keith DeBoer which I pointed out to him was not you.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that’s not the first time we’ve been confused and probably won’t be the last.

Lox said:

Over 70% comments @ ICANN are Copycat ... and it looks like they're doing their best to copy the most used template. Those who cannot express their minds in an unique/creative way cannot change anything.

Click to expand...

equity78 said:

Good point and those idiots might use that to say it was spam.

Click to expand...

VERY IMPORTANT: Please no NOT copy a template when submitting your comments. In the past ICANN used that as an excuse to essentially ignore all comments. Please write your own comments in your own words.

Deadline is 6:59PM Eastern Time (in about 2.5 hours).

Keith said:

I like the idea of an increase. In fact, it should cost a fortune to hold an asset, where there’s only one in the world.

Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that a domain isn't uniquely an asset. It's also a means of communication and capacity to share speech/expression on a global scale. Pricing basic domains too high is akin to restricting free speech and the sharing and dissemination of ideas.

Combine that with the fact the purchase power of the average citizen is drastically difference around the world, by increasing the prices on what are supposed to be the original TLDs intended for ALL the citizens of the world, you are effectively decreasing the volume of the voices of those who need to be heard the most.

Indeed there's plenty of room for higher priced and exclusive domains .. that's effectively what the ngTLD program was created for. But it's a critical mistake to turn over what were the TLDs "of the people and the masses" into an elitist state where people have to pay more just to be heard. That goes against the very foundation and purpose of the Internet itself.

NameDeck said:

Yes it will render a lot worthless. It will kill most of liquidity of the mid and lower valued liquid domains. Domainers leave, legitimate private people leave, hobbyist leave. Small companies leave. Only tier one domains will survive but as the namespace shrinks they will drop big time in value just the same.

Stuff like that kills a namespace. But hey, you planted a seed for thought and I respect that. Would be a nice experiment and it could actually speed up the demise of the web as we know it which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Click to expand...

FYI .. the experiment's already been done .. several of the ngTLDs are hundreds even thousands of dollars per year. Some successful and some a total failure. I personally don't think the fact they are priced so high, or the fact some are somewhat restricted, is necessarily a bad thing. In fact .. I think there's a LOt of potential good that could come if done openly and properly. HOWEVER .. there needs to also be the basic TLDs for the people. Today in 2020 that's effectively .com .. more importantly .. Verisign was assigned stewardship of .com .. unlike all other ngTLD's, .com did not go through an application process ... as such it's completely wrong to assume Verisign should have the same rights to .com as other companies have to their own ngTLDs. .com is intended for the world .. as such it should be made available to as many people as possible, which means that ICANN should be doing everything in their power to keep .com prices as low as they possibly can so that everyone from all corners of the world can afford them!

Sigh .. I sent mine in .. but email bounced. I called ICANN and the person who answered gave me a different email .. if any of you got an error please PM me and I'll give you the email in question.

Seems a bit sketchy .. the email I originally sent it to was the one generated directly at ICANN's comment page!

Joe Styler said:

I wanted to let everyone know who may not have received the email from GoDaddy yesterday about our stance on the price increase and how you can make your voice heard on the comments. The comment period is still open for another day. The proposed price increase would be 7% for 4 years.

Here is the public comment link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en

Here is the email we sent out.

ICANN has proposed changes that could significantly impact you and your business.
Let your voice be heard.

As a large domain portfolio holder, ICANN has proposed changes that could significantly impact you and your business. ICANN has proposed an amendment to the .COM registry agreement between itself and Verisign. The proposal would allow Verisign to increase the price of .COM by up to 7% every year for the next 4 years. Since 2018, we have been actively working to raise awareness around this issue, including when GoDaddy testified before Congress in July 2018. Even now, we’re continuing to have discussions, but ultimately, we are one company. Now is the time for ICANN to hear your voice. Please take a few minutes to let ICANN know how allowing this increase will impact you in the years to come. The public comment period is open until February 14th. To be heard, use ICANN’s form to submit your personalized comments. We value your business and vow to keep advocating on your behalf.

Click to expand...

Does anyone know when the price of .com might be increased by the 7% will it be next month?

@Daniel Owens .. They need to give at least 6 months notice. Plus they can't until Oct 26th 2020. That being said, I don't think it has to be on Oct 26th, just that it would be allowed any time after that.

"Under the amended Cooperative Agreement, the Department of Commerce noted that the domain name marketplace had grown more dynamic and concluded that it was in the public interest that, among other things, Verisign and ICANN may agree to amend the .COM Registry Agreement to permit an increase to the price for .COM registry services, up to a maximum of 7 percent in each of the final four years of each six-year period (the first six-year period commenced on Oct. 26, 2018)."

- https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-01-03-en

Daniel Owens said:

Does anyone know when the price of .com might be increased by the 7% will it be next month?

Click to expand...

If ... not before late April 2020 to be anounced

Joe Styler said:

I wanted to let everyone know who may not have received the email from GoDaddy yesterday about our stance on the price increase and how you can make your voice heard on the comments. The comment period is still open for another day. The proposed price increase would be 7% for 4 years.

Here is the public comment link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en

Here is the email we sent out.

ICANN has proposed changes that could significantly impact you and your business.
Let your voice be heard.

As a large domain portfolio holder, ICANN has proposed changes that could significantly impact you and your business. ICANN has proposed an amendment to the .COM registry agreement between itself and Verisign. The proposal would allow Verisign to increase the price of .COM by up to 7% every year for the next 4 years. Since 2018, we have been actively working to raise awareness around this issue, including when GoDaddy testified before Congress in July 2018. Even now, we’re continuing to have discussions, but ultimately, we are one company. Now is the time for ICANN to hear your voice. Please take a few minutes to let ICANN know how allowing this increase will impact you in the years to come. The public comment period is open until February 14th. To be heard, use ICANN’s form to submit your personalized comments. We value your business and vow to keep advocating on your behalf.

Click to expand...

@Joe Styler I scratch my head, because i find it hard for you to be able to be so concerned about ICANN and Verisign making a 7% pricing up adjustment to .com when your company charges $17.99 for a .com registration and renewal. i don't want to hear about any Domain Discount discount club that cost $89 a year, because the average consumer pays $17.99 for your .com product. do you care to elaborate on this ?

.X. said:

I scratch my head, because i find it hard for you to be able to be so concerned about ...

Click to expand...

GD's NameFind portfolio

GeorgeK said:

I just finished submitting my comments:

https://freespeech.com/2020/02/14/c...ed-amendment-3-to-the-com-registry-agreement/

I hope others will do the same. There are more than 8000 submissions already, but this is the most important contract involving ICANN, registrars and registrants, so the greatest amount of scrutiny is required.

Click to expand...

I agree George. I provided my comments without being prompted by this thread, but on George's prompting 8K of comments is such a tiny number of comments against the number of com's registered. ICANN are going to just blow right past all those comments as insignificant. It's a done deal.

stub said:

I agree George. I provided my comments without being prompted by this thread, but on George's prompting 8K of comments is such a tiny number of comments against the number of com's registered. ICANN are going to just blow right past all those comments as insignificant. It's a done deal.

Click to expand...

A typical ICANN comment period generates less than 50 comments, so the 8,998 comments to date should be compared with that figure, rather than the total number of domains that have been registered. I'm sure if they asked all domain name registrants, a huge proportion would be against the proposal. But, they never ask all registrants -- they seek to instead sneak these bad proposals through, hoping that nobody pays attention.

GeorgeK said:

A typical ICANN comment period generates less than 50 comments, so the 8,998 comments to date should be compared with that figure, rather than the total number of domains that have been registered. I'm sure if they asked all domain name registrants, a huge proportion would be against the proposal. But, they never ask all registrants -- they seek to instead sneak these bad proposals through, hoping that nobody pays attention.

Click to expand...

But do you think ICANN have agreed with your assumptions, or just dismissed it out of hand? I guess we will only know that, when it's too late and done and dusted Which isn't that the next step? ICANN review these comments by those robber baron domain speculators, and make a final decision. Or are there going to be endless more rounds of indecision, before they implement it.

As I ended in my last post. It's a done deal. IMHO. What ICANN should do is put it to Open Tender. But ICANN can't do that? Haven't they given Verisign an open ended contract. If not. What terms are there for them to terminate the contract, and to Open Tender this .com Registry contract? This question is probably hopeless, because I don't think they have any intention of running this by an Open Tender. Which they should have done when Verisign made their proposal for renewal.

Does anyone know the approximate time period until we will have some statement from ICANN on the input they received and their final decision?

Bob

ps re open tender, @stub, as I understand it that would need to have been done by the US Commerce Dept. at the initial stage. I could be wrong. I think ICANN role is one of review, but they do not view the awarding of the contract as their responsibility.

@Bob Hawkes .. Staff report due March 6th (Midnight UT)

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en

Ategy said:

@Bob Hawkes .. Staff report due March 6th (Midnight UT)

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en

Click to expand...

Thanks @Ategy . So we will not have to wait long. It will be interesting to see, although I am not hopeful that at this late stage the proposed increases will not come into effect.

Verisign's submission, late in process, surprised me. It just did not feel very professional to me - I had expected from such a respected and successful company a careful legal and business admin argument refuting the points, and making an argument why, despite their very healthy gross profit margin, they need additional revenue to increase security and ... blah blah ..... Instead it seemed really quickly put together and mainly attacked others rather than making their own case. Calling DNW a "speculator's blog" was pretty bad, and they seemed very fixated on Namecheap urging their customers to express comments, whereas almost all of the registrars seemed to do it. It just had a strange tone to it all.

Bob

Yeah I agree with your there Bob .. total mind-boggling garbage!

BTW .. here's my own official comments ...

ICANN Proposed Amendment #3 is Censorship on the World, a Threat to Democracy and Strengthens a Monopoly
http://namecult.com/icann-amendment3/