Changes

The dropping of the aforementioned litigation between Verisign and ICANN may have cleared the way for the renewal of the [[.com]] registry agreement from 2005 through 2012.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/25/verisign_icann_deal/ Verisign ICANN deal, TheRegister.co.uk]</ref> The agreement and its appendices can be viewed via the ICANN site [http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/com here].

The dropping of the aforementioned litigation between Verisign and ICANN may have cleared the way for the renewal of the [[.com]] registry agreement from 2005 through 2012.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/25/verisign_icann_deal/ Verisign ICANN deal, TheRegister.co.uk]</ref> The agreement and its appendices can be viewed via the ICANN site [http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/com here].

In June 2012, the [[ICANN Board]] went against community suggestions to approve Verisign's .com registry agreement for an additional seven years after its expiration on November 30th, 2012. Verisign will also be allowed to increase its registry fee by 7% in four out of the next seven years.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/9610-icann-gives-verisigns-com-contract-the-nod ICANN gives Verisign’s .com contract the nod], DomainIncite.com. Published 25 June 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.</ref> The new policy will result in Verisign paying ICANN a $0.25 fee for every .com registration, renewal, or transfer, instead of the lump sums it paid previously,<ref>[http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal ICANN to get $8 million more from new .com deal], DomainIncite.com. Published 27 July 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.</ref> potentially netting ICANN an additional $8 million in revenue annually.<ref name="verisign2">[http://domainincite.com/10865-breaking-us-probing-verisign-price-hikes-com-contract-extended US probing Verisign price hikes, .com contract may be extended], DomainIncite.com. Published 25 October 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.</ref> The original board resolutions can be viewed [http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 here].

In March 2012, [[ICANN]] posted a proposal for Verisign's proposed renewal of the 2006 .com registry agreement between the two parties.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27mar12-en.htm .com Registry Agreement Renewal], ICANN.org.</ref> Three months later, in June 2012, the [[ICANN Board]] went against community suggestions to approve Verisign's .com registry agreement for an additional seven years after its expiration on November 30th, 2012. Verisign will also be allowed to increase its registry fee by 7% in four out of the next seven years.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/9610-icann-gives-verisigns-com-contract-the-nod ICANN gives Verisign’s .com contract the nod], DomainIncite.com. Published 25 June 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.</ref> The new policy will result in Verisign paying ICANN a $0.25 fee for every .com registration, renewal, or transfer, instead of the lump sums it paid previously,<ref>[http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal ICANN to get $8 million more from new .com deal], DomainIncite.com. Published 27 July 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.</ref> potentially netting ICANN an additional $8 million in revenue annually.<ref name="verisign2">[http://domainincite.com/10865-breaking-us-probing-verisign-price-hikes-com-contract-extended US probing Verisign price hikes, .com contract may be extended], DomainIncite.com. Published 25 October 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.</ref> The original board resolutions can be viewed [http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-23jun12-en.htm#2 here].

In August 2012, 3 of [[ICANN]]'s Constituencies ([[ALAC]], [[GNSO]] [[Business Constituency]], [[GNSO]] [[Intellectual Property Constituency]]) sent a letter to ICANN complaining that the organization held its renewal talks with Verisign behind closed doors and the result is that there are no [[Whois|Thick Whois]] requirements for the .com TLD.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/08/21/constituencies-blast-icanns-closed-door-verisign-com-contract-renewal/ Constituencies Blast ICANNs Closed Door Verisign Com Contract Renewal, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>

In August 2012, 3 of [[ICANN]]'s Constituencies ([[ALAC]], [[GNSO]] [[Business Constituency]], [[GNSO]] [[Intellectual Property Constituency]]) sent a letter to ICANN complaining that the organization held its renewal talks with Verisign behind closed doors and the result is that there are no [[Whois|Thick Whois]] requirements for the .com TLD.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/08/21/constituencies-blast-icanns-closed-door-verisign-com-contract-renewal/ Constituencies Blast ICANNs Closed Door Verisign Com Contract Renewal, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>

Regardless of complaints and ICANN's approval, the decision first needs approval from the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] before it can proceed.<ref name="verisign2"></ref>

Regardless of complaints and ICANN's approval, the decision first needs approval from the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] before it can proceed.<ref name="verisign2"></ref>