[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] History of Case Laws- Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement

eCorp ecorpcom at gmail.com
Mon Feb 10 17:02:03 UTC 2020

24 years ago in 1996 before ICANN and when a clear monopoly was forming, we
needed iCANN.  ICANN is now a loose cannon and the biggest risk to the
digital asset class know as URL's.  How many no bid contracts when pricing
should be going down and security up.  Open up the contract and see what
happens?  Why not, are the people making the money to scared or just in to
much control they dont care?   Its sad ICANN is supporting such price
increases when they know opening it up will lower the prices and do it
better.  Oh ya, profits to Verisign and the big old white guys guys running
the Gov back door contracts sponsoring Verisign.  I am a registrant of a
.com domain name since 1996, strongly against the proposed price increase
to .COM domains, (Dont claim national security for increase as that is
BS).  Verisign has one of the highest margin business, why is iCANN
supporting even more?  Oh ya, we forgot ICANN is for the corporate company
who funds them not the community as originally planned.  Its just not
right, then open the contract for bidding or give some of it back to the
source that is providing it like Training, etc.

ICANN is supposed to govern the domain name system in the public interest,
not Verisign bottom line or claim national security.  Do what is right and
hold Verisign Accountable to keeping margins still over 60% and still over
a billion in pure profit..  Break it please as its the biggest risk to our
centralized system of power and ICANN has not proven itself with whoever
has the biggest checkbook.

chad folk
Austin, Texas, Florida United States
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20/attachments/20200210/335ad460/attachment.html>

More information about the Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20 mailing list