news Icann Verisign comment period on .com price increase

[Joe Styler]

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.

 

[1Darko]

I have sent my comments - however I know exactly what I will do in the following months of 2020:
Buying stocks of Verisign and GoDaddy.

 

[equity78]

hi Keith
Your joke is here:
https://tldinvestors.com/2020/02/at-this-stage-com-should-be-1000-a-year-to-hold.html


Show attachment 144646

There is no requirement to sign up that is a completely false statement.

 

[Keith]

There is no requirement to sign up that is a completely false statement.

It says a name and email are required in order to comment.


Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *

Comment

 

[equity78]

It says a name and email are required in order to comment.


Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *

Comment

Yes as in every other blog in the world, you are not registering for an account. No username and password.

 

[Keith]

Yes as in every other blog in the world, you are not registering for an account. No username and password.

Why would I give an email to a third party site when the discussion was here first?

Also, people are making comments there which are 100% false. I don’t do blog posts or videos to sell my domains. Never have. Whoever Nick is has the wrong guy.

Also, no, I didn’t miss the boat and the few sales I publish here at NP are proof. Another genius commenting with no clue.

 

[Sutruk]

Yes as in every other blog in the world, you are not registering for an account. No username and password.

Hello Sir. In my opinion that comment was not worth to be publised at tldinvestors.com

The comment does not deserve even a place in this thread, not to mention in tldinvestors.com

 

[equity78]

Hello Sir. In my opinion that comment was not worth to be publised at tldinvestors.com

The comment does not deserve even a place in this thread, not to mention in tldinvestors.com

Which you did not mention a comment.

 

[equity78]

Why would I give an email to a third party site when the discussion was here first?

Also, people are making comments there which are 100% false. I don’t do blog posts or videos to sell my domains. Never have. Whoever Nick is has the wrong guy.

Also, no, I didn’t miss the boat and the few sales I publish here at NP are proof. Another genius commenting with no clue.

Keith I did not ask you to comment, I know who you are, I corrected you had to sign up for an account. I don't know why the other member tagged you.

 

[Sutruk]

Which you did not mention a comment.

I mean this comment:

If godaddy protests it’s because they want to keep low prices for their bottom line. More registrations equal more revenue.

At this stage, .com should be $1,000 a year to hold. It would actually build the internet enduser base and create real content. The days of holding loads of domains hostage should come to an end imo.

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

But that's just my opinion.

As you already said at the article, that was just a trolling post.

 

[Sutruk]

..

 

[equity78]

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

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]

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

 

[equity78]

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

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

 

[Sutruk]

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.

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

 

[Lox]

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

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

 

[Keith]

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.

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

 

[Bob Hawkes]

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.

 

[Keith]

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.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

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

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

 

[equity78]

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

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.