[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] FEEDBACK - Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement

Linda Bester lr_bester at yahoo.com.au
Tue Feb 11 00:37:16 UTC 2020

I am writing to voice my opposition to Proposed Amendment 3.

While price hikes such as this won’t mean much to larger businesses, it will impact terribly on millions of individuals, families and small businesses that rely on .com affordability.

It is merely an assumption that .com addresses are purely business-related addresses. This requirement was not defined and enforced during the advent of the internet, and applying it retrospectively is completely unreasonable. A huge number of people, who gain absolutely no profit from these domains, will have to forego their amazing websites that they’ve poured their heart and soul into, and the internet will be devoid of these richly diverse and interesting websites, causing the focus to turn more towards big business contributions instead.  

I am mother of two and an author, and I have personally set aside quite a number of Domains to cover:
- various business ideas;
- hobbies I would like to make websites about; and- my children, for when they are old enough and want to use their own personalised address.  

I can only just afford to pay the yearly amount for all of these as it is. I do not make a cent off any of these, as they are all parked. If the prices were to increase much more, I would have to forego a lot of these.

I am aware that the 7% is a maximum per year for each of the four years and, theoretically, there may be no increase - or a sub 7% increase some years - however, I have little faith that this will be the norm and I most certainly cannot plan on it being any less than the full 7%.The only way this might work is if price increases are not applied to individuals, and also if they are applied to businesses according to their financial earnings. It would be ideal if a more nominal amount could be introduced for Domain Name parking.  The web, and global DNS, were envisioned to be run for the public good, and they SHOULD be run for the public good. Deals such as this are an abdication of that mandate; short sighted profit chasing at the expense of all else.

Please do not adopt this proposal, but rather find an alternative option that does not hurt individuals, families, and small businesses on many levels, including financially.

Linda Bester
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20/attachments/20200211/0298e536/attachment.html>

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