Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Contenido disponible solo en los siguientes idiomas
Submissions for this Proceeding
Proposed Renewal of the Registry Agreement for .NET
View this Proceeding
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
Reject the ICANN-Verisign agreement because it allows governmental expropriation of domain names.
Submission Summary:
The proposed changes to section 2.7(b)(ii)(5) are dangerous and undermine both the working order and free exchange of information on the public internet. The changes should be rejected.
Submission Summary:
Debate should absolutely be allowed before this is accepted.
Submission Summary:
Please allow for a public discussion on this horrible change at the ICANN77.
I myself find that any government can interfere with domain registration (2.7(b)(ii)(5)) without due process to be alarming in the least, and catastrophic as the norm. Do not allow for this to be accepted, or at the least the public comment period should be extended by at least an additional 2 months to allow discussion at ICANN77.
Due process i...
Submission Summary:
The proposed changes regarding government seizure of .NET domains to this agreement, listed in Section 2.7 of Appendix 8 (pages 147-148), would allow governments to seize any .NET domain they choose. If they're included in the final agreement, it will open the door to malicious attacks from nations engaging in conflict.
Please do not include the changes to Section 2.7 of Appendix 8 (pages 147-148) in any new agreements and ex...
Submission Summary:
Amendments to section 2.7(b)(ii) and 2.7(b)(ii)(5) need to be completely removed as it strips all freedom from registrars.
Submission Summary:
I urge that the proposal be abolished, and that ICANN and Verisign should simply renew the existing contract with absolutely no changes.
Submission Summary:
Giving governments unchecked abilities to cancel, redirect, or transfer to their control applicable domain names is an outrageous and dangerous proposal that must be stopped, as it does not respect due process.
Submission Summary:
Amendments to section 2.7(b)(ii) and 2.7(b)(ii)(5) need to be completely removed as it strips all freedom from registrars.
Submission Summary:
Dear ICANN and Verisign,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed changes to global domain name policy in the renewal of the .NET registry agreement. Specifically, the new text in 2.7(b)(ii)(5) that would allow any government in the world to cancel, redirect, or transfer to their control applicable domain names is deeply troubling.
Granting such power to governments, particularly those with a ...
Submission Summary:
This is a very dangerous, risky proposal that does not respect due process. It usurps the role of registrars, making governments go directly to Verisign (or any other registry that adopts similar language) to achieve anything they desired. It overturns more than two decades of global domain name policy.
Submission Summary:
Expressing opposition to the overly broad language of proposed changes to Section 2.7 of Appendix 8 regarding agreements by registrants to accept unilateral confiscation of domains at the request of governments. Due process is not adequately protected against government agencies that have demonstrated a willingness to act in bad faith ways, or for policies adopted that violate international standards and expectations. No single entity, governm...
Submission Summary:
This upends two decades worth of standards and policies. No government should be able to simply seize any domain name they wish. This policy should not be put into place.
Submission Summary:
Section 2.7 of Appendix 8, on pages 147-148 should be changed regarding allowing any government to cancel redirect or transfer any domain under this agreement.
Submission Summary:
I urge the committee to reject this return to the wild-west days of internet land-grabs.
Submission Summary:
We've seen how corrupt governments can get and now you want to give them carte blanche over any/all domain names? This is probably the most absurd digital act of our generation. Why do they need this power? Answer: they don't. They already have TLD .gov!
Taking away anyone's domain name is extremely intrusive. It disrupts organic traffic that they've spent years building. You're not just taking a domain name you're takin...
Submission Summary:
This proposal should be terminated and not implemented. Allowing any country to seize domains and stop speech is outrageous and an affront to democracy.