[Comments-o-com-single-char-10may18] NO to premium fees / premium renewals / ownership transfers on .com domain names! (Aka, NO to special restrictions for any domain in the .com extension.)

[Keven Dabney]

ICANN,

As the current proposal stands, there is zero chance of gaining my
support for the release of O.com.

While this proposal might be warm and fuzzy at the high level, this
proposal is clearly made to give VeriSign an opportunity to ask to amend
the .com contract.  And not for the general good.  Instead of being
forced to charge realistic prices for .com domain names, VeriSign is
trying to introduce premium fees, premium renewals and ownership
restrictions into what is a straight forward and agnostic
top-level-domain.  In the end, if VeriSign is successful, this proposal
would open Pandora's box for allowing such things on more .com domain
names in the future.  And then for more groups of domain names in the
future.  And then ... who knows.  Existing domains?  All .com domains? 
Domains of major trademarks?

This is clearly VeriSign trying to push limits.  It is using the charity
portion of this auction as a clutch to push for altering the .com
contract to its long-term benefit.

I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THIS.  I GIVE A RESOUNDING *NO* TO PREMIUM
PRICES AND RENEWALS ON ANY .COM DOMAIN NAME(S)!!!  INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO THE PROPOSED AUCTION OF O.COM.  I ALSO GIVE A RESOUNDING *NO*
TO OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS ON ANY .COM DOMAIN NAME(S)!!!  THIS PROPOSAL
GOES AGAINST THE ENTIRE SPIRIT OF THE .COM DOMAIN NAME EXTENSION AND
INTRODUCE UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITIES.

I submit that this proposal was made in bad faith.  And here is how I
know it:  If this proposal were in good faith, it would have simply
stated, "we, Verisign, would like to allow the auction of O.com.  The
auction will be conducted by a third party, all profits from said
auction will be donated to charity.  After that, this domain will abide
by the exact same rules of all 133 million other .com domain names in
existence."   However, VeriSign did not do this or make this auction
anywhere near so simple.  VeriSign has made this extremely convoluted
and complicated.  Verisign is suggesting premium renewal fees and
ownership restrictions.  This is merely VeriSign's indirect plan.  The
proposal was not made with open arms.  This proposal is an excuse to
meddle with the longstanding .com contract!  It is trying to carve out
special requirements for certain domain name(s).  If successful with
O.com, what next?  Obviously, the other single character and single
letter .com domain names.  But then what?  Microsoft.com?  Google.com? 
Diamonds.com?  Mortgage.com?  Bank.com?  Search.com?  Two-letter
domains?  All .com domains?  The three already delegated
single-character domains?  Where would it end?

ICANN should also realize the very dangerous precedent it would be
setting if it entertained such a proposal.  Entertaining this proposal
as-is would mean subsequent rounds of "we want this" and "we want to
auction that" and then "we want the profits" and then "we want premium
renewals on existing domains."  It sets up a dangerous precedent for
ICANN to have to answer to all sorts of random carve-out requests in the
.com contract by VeriSign.  This is something ICANN is neither
financially prepared for, nor should ICANN be putting any resources
into!

VeriSign should be managing the extension as the monopoloy it is, not
trying to dictate special terms into specific domain names within the
extension!

I gladly support the release of the O.com domain name if it came with
the exact same renewal prices every year going forward as every other
.com domain name in existence, and as long as there are no limitations
of ownership transfer.  Essentially, if the domain were to act and abide
by all rules and regulations already in place for ALL other 133 million
.com domain names.   I also support all proceeds of an O.com auction
going purely to charity.  But I only support such an auction *only* if
the auctioned domain name(s) have no special restrictions which require
meddling and altering the .com contract.  A live O.com should be treated
as every other .com domain in the world.  VeriSign should *not* be
allowed to alter the already monopolistic, most successful, most
well-known extension for this one domain.  To have a special section
just for this domain in the contract.  VeriSign should not be allowed to
introduce carve-outs in the contract for ownership restrictions and
premium renewal prices.  And for what?  Fir this one domain?  For a
group of 23 domain names?

Think of it this way:  There are 133,000,000+ .com domain names in
existence.  And Verisign is trying to alter the .com contract over ONE
DOMAIN NAME.  If this proposal is even considered, I propose VeriSign
finally be forced to put the .com contract out for public tender once
and for all.  VeriSign, through this proposal, is trying to introduce
changes into the .com contract for 1 domain name out of 133,000,000
domain names.  This is absurd and insanity!  Verisign, if foolish enough
to pursue this, would wind up spending more on legal fees than the
auction would net in the end.  Why is it making such a request?  Because
Verisign is trying to use charity as an excuse to alter the .com
contract.  At the cost of ICANN, at the cost of the Internet community,
and at an ultimate cost to .com domain name owners worldwide.  In the
end, the real cost is that the .com contract would become more
complicated, split, and murky with special edge-cases, giving VeriSign
more opportunities to try and put restrictions on more domain names in
the future, which indirectly would lead to better bottom-line profits
for the company.  But would not be in the benefit of the world, a
benefit to any .com domain name owners, and would take more and more of
ICANN's time and resources going forward.

I propose James Bidzos and Verisign simply donate the $35 million to
charity on good accord (or whatever such auction might net) instead of
trying to pull a fast one like they are doing here.  The nuance of what
they are doing might seem subtle at first, but it is clearly Verisign's
intent to push the boundaries.  Because if VeriSign wanted to be
charitable it would have just given to charity.  And if it wanted to be
charitable, it would have simply proposed auctioning off O.com, with no
strings attached.  Instead, VeriSign has proposed premium renewal prices
be introduced to the .com contract, that ownership rights restrictions
be put into the contract.  Over time VeriSign would love to start to
introduce premium fees and ownership transfers on more .com domain
names, put in more controls, and ratchet up the profits even more.

Do not be fooled.  This is 100% not about charity!  It is VeriSign
testing what limits it can push, so that eventually it can reap more
profits from owners of .com domain names worldwide.  Remember, this is a
corporation that has proven to do such things.  Remember when VeriSign
forced its upper hand in the .com contract by means of Regulatory
Capture?  And remember when VeriSign upped the prices of .com domain
names at every opportunity it was able to do so, until the NTIA said it
could not do so anymore?  What an embarrassment to the company that is
supposed to be the steward for the .com extension, yet is it now
proposing to muddy the .com contract over ONE SINGLE DOMAIN.  To pave
the path for more carve-outs in the .com contract in the future. 
VeriSign is always working to be more profitable and make things better
for itself, worse for domain name registrants.  Better for VeriSign.  At
a higher financial cost to the world.

I am absolutely against the proposal to alter the .com contract for just
one domain.   Even if the argument is made they could do this for all
other 23 one-letter .com domains currently not delegated, that is only
23 domain names out of 133,000,000 in existence.    As a decimal this is
1.72932331e-7.   Or in more readable format, Verisign is proposing
altering the .com contract for only 0.00000017% of .com domain names in
the world!!!  This is stupid and should *not* be considered.  If it were
done, it would only be time until VeriSign then tries to alter the
contract again, then again, then again.  Only to push for what
eventually gives the company the highest possible profits.  This is
their clear and obvious long-term plan.  It is so abundantly obvious and
all-for-profit.  Not "charitable".  VeriSign threw charity into the mix
only try and make this sound like a good idea.

Do not jeopardize the more than 132,999,974 .com domain names in
existence by entertaining such a radical deviation from how the .com
gTLD always has run with special pricing!

Again, VeriSign is only using this as an excuse to try and modify the
.com contract to its future financial benefit, and in no way should this
one domain hold more important rights than the 132,999,974 COMBINED
domain names that proceed it.  The .com contract should *not* be altered
for any specific domain or group of domain names!!!!!  To do so would be
a slap in the face of every .com domain name registrant worldwide!

Should Verisign want push for the release of single character domains,
the single most important thing is that these extremely few domains are
bound by the exact same rules of all other .com domain names in
existence today.  To do otherwise is just too murky, and for what
reason?  Only to push the envelope and allow VeriSign to modify the .com
contract?  At a huge legal cost to ICANN and to VeriSign.  And at the
cost of splitting the .com contract for every single person and/or
company who owns a .com domain name and this does in fact affect.  To
make management of domain names more complicated than it should be. 
This is very problematic to the other 133 million other owners of .com
domain names in the world!

This is AN EXTREMELY BAD IDEA which should be totally dismissed on
behalf of the other 133 million .com domain name owners, whose contract
(the .com contract) is potentially going to be altered and tarnished and
muddied ... over ... one single domain name.  And this would only
introduce carve-outs which go completely against the defacto standard
the other 133 million .com domain names are bound by.

Finally -- why should I, Keven Dabney, have a say in the matter?  Not
only am I a citizen of the Internet and a domain name professional
looking out for the common good, I myself own many domain names and this
proposal affects me tremendously.  It potentially jeopardizes each and
every one of the .com domain names I own and operate, and I thus am
completely against this proposal.  I am also quite fearful that VeriSign
would even consider such a move, and to me only indicates VeriSign is in
this for ultimate long-term profit, and not to be the best steward to
the .com namespace in the end.

Thank you for listening.

Keven Dabney
Internet and Domain Name Professional