DOCSLIB.ORG

Alpine Start Advising Response to Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement Greg Rafert, Ph.D. February 14, 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alpine Start Advising Response to Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement Greg Rafert, Ph.D. February 14, 2020 Alpine Start Advising Response to Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement Greg Rafert, Ph.D. February 14, 2020 I. Executive Summary 1. This comment provides an economic analysis of Verisign, Inc.’s (Verisign) proposed price increase for .COM registrations. Based on my training as an economist, review of the available evidence, and experience with ICANN and the TLD marketplace, I conclude that there is no economic rationale for Verisign to increase prices for .COM and that increased prices will very likely harm consumers: In the face of heightened competition, which has been provided as one reason for increasing .COM pricing, economic theory and empirical economic studies predict that a firm would typically lower, not increase, prices. To my knowledge, Verisign has not provided a rationale as to why increased competition would require it to increase prices for .COM. Verisign’s gross profit and operating margins have grown significantly over time and are currently high relative to other firms. While not demonstrative as to whether Verisign has market power in the TLD Alpine Start Advising 1 marketplace, they do suggest that changes in Verisign’s costs are not driving Verisign’s interest in increasing prices for .COM. An increase in the price of .COM registrations will harm consumers worldwide, as consumers are unlikely to switch to other, less expensive TLDs due to the high costs associated with switching from a .COM domain. While Verisign may argue that it will use increased revenues from .COM price increases to further improve the security and stability of the internet, thus benefiting consumers, this is unlikely. In particular, even though Verisign’s net income has continued to grow, reaching approximately $612 million in 2019, Verisign’s R&D and capital expenditures have remained constant. 2. Finally, the argument that .COM is facing increased competition from new gTLDs and ccTLDs is not supported by the available evidence. .COM enjoys a dominant position in the TLD marketplace, which will allow Verisign to continue increasing prices (if permitted to do so), thus harming consumers. 3. I first describe my qualifications that are relevant to this matter in Section II. In Section III, I provide a brief overview of the proposed changes to Verisign’s Registry Agreement for .COM. I then detail my opinions in Section IV and summarize my conclusions in Section V. Alpine Start Advising 2 II. Qualifications 4. I am the CEO and founder of the economic consulting firm, Alpine Start Advising. I received my undergraduate degree in economics from Carleton College in 2003 and my Ph.D. in applied economics at the University of California, Berkeley in 2008. Prior to founding Alpine Start Advising, I worked at Analysis Group, Inc. as a Vice President. 5. I am an expert in industrial organization, which involves the analysis of competition and antitrust issues. As an expert in industrial organization, I have been engaged on numerous matters in which I have been asked to analyze alleged anticompetitive conduct, as well as the potential pro- and anti-competitive effects of proposed mergers. In these matters, I have assessed the likelihood of price changes and the potential impacts on consumers of such price changes. 6. I have also worked, as an independent consultant, on behalf of ICANN to analyze topics related to ICANN and the TLD marketplace. My work includes: An assessment, conducted from 2015 through 2016, of the competitive effects associated with the new gTLD program for ICANN. This study examined changes in market prices, share, and power for domain registries and registrars as a result of the program.1 Independent reviews of both the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) and the Nominating Committee (NomCom) for ICANN.2 Both reports identified areas in which the SSAC and NomCom work well, 1 See https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/competitive-effects-phase-two-assessment-11oct16-en.pdf. 2 See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssac-review-final-17dec18-en.pdf and https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf. Alpine Start Advising 3 areas that may benefit from improvements, and whether the SSAC and NomCom are accountable to the relevant stakeholders. A review of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) in which I assessed the strengths and weaknesses of TMCH services in conjunction with the specified areas for review proposed by the General Advisory Committee (GAC). Specifically, this review was focused on the TMCH matching criteria, as well as the Claims Service and Sunrise Services.3 An analysis of the use and effectiveness of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) offered through the TMCH. This analysis was commissioned as part of the policy review of the RPMs chartered by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council in March 2016.4 7. In addition to my work on behalf of ICANN, I have worked on numerous matters involving domain name pricing and competition within the domain name space. More broadly, I have analyzed the impacts of competition in other technology marketplaces, including broadband internet and cellular networks. III. Background – Proposed Amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement 8. Verisign, the registry operator of .COM, and ICANN announced a proposed agreement to amend the .COM Registry Agreement (.COM RA) on January 3, 2020.5 The 3 See https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/tmch/draft-services-review-25jul16-en.pdf. 4 See https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191544/1540023342.pdf?1540023342. 5 See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-01-03-en. Alpine Start Advising 4 stated rationale for this amendment is to “enhance the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; provide limited and transparent pricing flexibility for .COM registry services; and standardize the .COM RA by including certain technical and reporting requirements based on terms in other registry agreements between ICANN and the registry operators of other TLDs.”6 9. Importantly, the proposed amendment to the .COM RA would allow Verisign to increase the price of .COM registry services. As noted by ICANN: “Under the amended Cooperative Agreement, the Department of Commerce noted that the domain name marketplace had grown more dynamic and concluded that it was in the public interest that, among other things, Verisign and ICANN may agree to amend the .COM Registry Agreement to permit an increase to the price for .COM registry services, up to a maximum of 7 percent in each of the final four years of each six-year period (the first six-year period commenced on Oct. 26, 2018). The proposed agreement announced today updates the .COM RA to reflect those changes.”7 (Emphasis added.) 10. The stated rationale for allowing Verisign to increase .COM prices is that Verisign is facing a more “dynamic DNS marketplace”,8 in reference to .COM facing increased competition from new gTLDs, ccTLDs, and social media services. 6 See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-01-03-en. 7 See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-01-03-en. 8 See https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amendment_35.pdf. Alpine Start Advising 5 11. Although Verisign currently charges $7.85 per year for a .COM registration, under the proposed amendment, Verisign could raise .COM prices to $10.26 by the end of the six-year period.9 IV. Analysis of Verisign’s Proposed Price Increase for .COM a. Summary of Conclusions 12. Based on my review of the available evidence, I conclude that there is no economic rationale for Verisign to increase prices for .COM and that price increases for .COM will harm consumers. Specifically: Economic theory demonstrates that in the face of increased competition, which is alleged to be the case for .COM, firms will typically lower prices, not seek to raise prices significantly. At the current price of $7.85 per year that Verisign charges for a .COM registration, Verisign earns high gross profit and operating margins. These margins have increased significantly during the 2009 – 2019 period, are significantly higher than a typical technology or S&P 500 firm, and will likely increase further if Verisign is permitted to increase .COM prices to $10.26 at the end of the six-year period governed by its .COM RA with ICANN. While margins cannot be used to infer whether a firm has monopoly power, Verisign’s high margins indicate that further price increases are not justified. 9 See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2020-01-03-en. Alpine Start Advising 6 If Verisign increases the price of .COM, consumers will be harmed since individuals are unlikely to switch to other TLDs due to high switching costs, and more generally, a lack of substitutability between .COM and other TLDs. Consumers could benefit if Verisign used its higher revenues, deriving from an increase in .COM prices, to enhance the security and stability of the internet (or otherwise improve the quality of .COM), but this is unlikely given that as Verisign’s net income has grown, Verisign’s R&D and capital expenditures have not increased. 13. Finally, contrary to the argument that .COM is facing increased competition from new gTLDs and ccTLDs, I find that .COM continues to enjoy a dominant position in the TLD marketplace, which will allow Verisign to continue increasing prices, if permitted to do so, to the detriment of consumers worldwide. b. What Economics Says About the Impact of Competition on Prices 14. Economists, such as myself, have exhaustively studied the effects of competition on the prices that firms charge. This work includes both theoretical analyses that account for different market structures, which then yield testable predictions, and empirical work that uses market data to test the predictions resulting from this theoretical work.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Paypal's Security
    PayPal’s Security Key PayPal is a great service for enabling both businesses and consumers to buy and sell goods and services online without exposing private financial information to the other parties in a transaction. As a consumer, you can safely purchase goods and services online without exposing your credit or debit card information to be recorded and possibly misused. As a business, you can be paid for your goods or services using the Web or email without the need of storing your customer’s private financial information. A big concern with PayPal is that anyone who knows the password of your PayPal account can access the financial services that you have authorized to be used with PayPal. For consumers, this means that unauthorized purchases or cash transfer may be performed from your credit cards and bank accounts. As a business, unauthorized PayPal access can be a source of fraudulent purchases. Password security is always the responsibility of the PayPal account holder; but now PayPal has a service to make the disclosure of your PayPal password an almost insignificant threat. In February 2007, PayPal introduced an optional security key system for users to access their PayPal accounts. The security key does not replace your PayPal password; instead, it adds an extra layer of security by requiring an additional security code be entered with your password when you log into your PayPal account. What makes this security code so different from a password is that it randomly generated by a small, electronic device called a security token, which is a key fob that easily fits in the palm of your hand.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoom Go Boom!
    Security Now! Transcript of Episode #761 Page 1 of 21 Transcript of Episode #761 Zoom Go Boom! Description: This week starts off with a bunch of web browser news including Firefox zero-days, Safari's recent scrape, more coronavirus-related feature rollbacks, the status of TLS v1.0 and 1.1, and some interesting developments on the Edge front. We revisit the lingering STIR and SHAKEN telco protocol mess, then look at a new DNS-filtering add-on service from Cloudflare and at the growing influence of an Internet group hoping to tighten up the mess with BGP. After a quick update on my SpinRite project, we take a look at what's been going on with the security of Zoom, the suddenly chosen tool for hosting Internet virtual classrooms and meetings of all kinds. High quality (64 kbps) mp3 audio file URL: http://media.GRC.com/sn/SN-761.mp3 Quarter size (16 kbps) mp3 audio file URL: http://media.GRC.com/sn/sn-761-lq.mp3 SHOW TEASE: It's time for Security Now!. Steve Gibson is here. Lots to talk about including a Mozilla Firefox zero-day. It's been fixed, but just barely. A problem with Safari. BGP gets some MANRS. And what's wrong with Zoom, and a pretty good alternative. It's all coming up next on Security Now!. Leo Laporte: This is Security Now! with Steve Gibson, Episode 761, recorded Tuesday, April 7th, 2020: Zoom Go Boom! It's time for Security Now!, the show where we cover your security and privacy and safety and quarantine online.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 AGM Minutes
    OARC Annual General Meeting 3rd October 2015 - Minutes Date: Saturday 3rd October 2015 Location: Fairmont Queen Elizabeth, 900 Rene Levesque Blvd. W Montreal, Quebec H3B 4A5, Canada Chair: Ondrej Filip Secretary: Keith Mitchell Attendees Registered: 138 In person: 130, Remote: 7 Name Institution ISA, Saib CLEMENTS, Carl Afilias ROY, Jean Akamai Technologies LAWRENCE, David Akamai Technologies APRIL, Tim Akamai Technologies MILLER, Donavan Amazon ROBIN, Noah AOL DETWEILER, Valerie AOL HUSTON, Geoff APNIC BJØRN HANSEN, Ask Apple JEFFERS, David ARIN MIZELLE, Devon ARIN ROWLEY, Matt ARIN KE, Qiang BII KERR, Shane BII SILVA DAMAS, Joao Luis Bond Internet Systems JOHNSON, Aaron Charter Communications LIU, Charlie Charter Communications CONNELL, Isaiah Charter Communications SRIRAM, Ajay Charter Communications ZHANG, Tongfeng CIRA THOMPSON, Evan CIRA ZACK, Jacob CIRA LATOUR, Jacques CIRA STEWART, Jonathan CIRA SWAIN, Amanda CIRA MALENFANT, Eric CIRA CHANTIGNY, Rock CIRA BOOS, Roy Cisco Systems KWONG, David Cisco Systems VALSORDA, Filippo Cloudflare GUÐMUNDSSON, Ólafur CloudFlare ZHANG, Mingkai CNNIC XINYUE, Zhang CNNIC PAN, Lanlan CNNIC HAGOPIAN, Peter Comcast BARNITZ, John Comcast EBERSMAN, Paul Comcast HLAVACEK, Tomas CZ.NIC FILIP, Ondrej CZ.NIC SURÝ, Ondřej CZ.NIC PETRASCH, Christian DENIC BHABUTA, Denesh DNS-OARC KHEMLANI, Dalini DNS-OARC GRAVES, Susan DNS-OARC SOTOMAYOR, William DNS-OARC MITCHELL, Keith DNS-OARC DUARTE, Eduardo DNS.PT ROBERTS, Bruce DomainTools ALLEN, David Dyn GRAY, Robert Dyn COWIE, James Dyn HYNES, Liam Dyn KNIGHT, Dave
    [Show full text]
  • Certificate Authority Trust List
    Certificate Authority Trust List First Published: January 31, 2020 Certificate Authority Trust List The following is the list of trusted Certificate Authorities embedded in the following devices: Cisco IP Phone 7800 Series, as of release 12.7 Cisco IP Phone 8800 Series, as of release 12.7 For Mobile and Remote Access through Expressway, the Expressway server must be signed against one of these Certificate Authorities. Fingerprint Subject 342cd9d3062da48c346965297f081ebc2ef68fdc C=AT, L=Vienna, ST=Austria, O=ARGE DATEN - Austrian Society for Data Protection, OU=GLOBALTRUST Certification Service, CN=GLOBALTRUST, [email protected] 4caee38931d19ae73b31aa75ca33d621290fa75e C=AT, O=A-Trust Ges. f. Sicherheitssysteme im elektr. Datenverkehr GmbH, OU=A-Trust-nQual-03, CN=A- Trust-nQual-03 cd787a3d5cba8207082848365e9acde9683364d8 C=AT, O=A-Trust Ges. f. Sicherheitssysteme im elektr. Datenverkehr GmbH, OU=A-Trust-Qual-02, CN=A- Trust-Qual-02 2e66c9841181c08fb1dfabd4ff8d5cc72be08f02 C=AT, O=A-Trust Ges. f. Sicherheitssysteme im elektr. Datenverkehr GmbH, OU=A-Trust-Root-05, CN=A- Trust-Root-05 84429d9fe2e73a0dc8aa0ae0a902f2749933fe02 C=AU, O=GOV, OU=DoD, OU=PKI, OU=CAs, CN=ADOCA02 51cca0710af7733d34acdc1945099f435c7fc59f C=BE, CN=Belgium Root CA2 a59c9b10ec7357515abb660c4d94f73b9e6e9272 C=BE, O=Certipost s.a., n.v., CN=Certipost E-Trust Primary Normalised CA 742cdf1594049cbf17a2046cc639bb3888e02e33 C=BE, O=Certipost s.a., n.v., CN=Certipost E-Trust Primary Qualified CA Cisco Systems, Inc. www.cisco.com 1 Certificate Authority
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper: a Proposal for DNAME Equivalence Mapping for TLD Strings
    VeriSign® White Paper: A Proposal for DNAME Equivalence Mapping for TLD Strings COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION ©2005 VeriSign, Inc. All rights reserved. VeriSign, the VeriSign logo “Where it all comes together,” and other trademarks, service marks, and designs are registered or unregistered trademarks of VeriSign and its subsidiaries in the United States and in foreign countries. 11/05. DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY VeriSign, Inc. has made efforts to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information in this document. However, VeriSign, Inc. makes no warranties of any kind (whether express, implied or statutory) with respect to the information contained herein. VeriSign, Inc. assumes no liability to any party for any loss or damage (whether direct or indirect) caused by any errors, omissions or statements of any kind contained in this document. Further, VeriSign, Inc. assumes no liability arising from the application or use of the product or service described herein and specifically disclaims any representation that the products or services described herein do not infringe upon any existing or future intellectual property rights. Nothing herein grants the reader any license to make, use, or sell equipment or products constructed in accordance with this document. Finally, all rights and privileges related to any intellectual property right described herein are vested in the patent, trademark, or service mark owner, and no other person may exercise such rights without express permission, authority, or license secured from the patent, trademark, or service mark owner. VeriSign Inc. reserves the right to make changes to any information herein without further notice. NOTICE AND CAUTION Concerning U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • WIPO Domain Name Dispute: Case No. LRO2013-0066
    ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Regtime Ltd. and Legato Ltd. v. VeriSign Sarl Case No. LRO2013-0066 1. The Parties The Objectors are Regtime Ltd. and Legato Ltd., Russian Federation, represented by Winston & Strawn LLP, United States of America. The Respondent/Applicant is VeriSign Sarl, Switzerland, represented by Thomas C. Indelicarto, VeriSign Inc., United States of America. 2. The applied-for gTLD string The applied-for gTLD string is <.ком> [xn--j1aef]. 3. Procedural History The Objection was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “WIPO Center”) on March 13, 2013 (UTC), pursuant to the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (the “Procedure”). In accordance with Article 9 of the Procedure, the WIPO Center completed the review of the Objection on March 22, 2013, and determined that the Objection complies with the requirements of the Procedure and the World Intellectual Property Organization Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution for Existing Legal Rights Objections (the “WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution”). In accordance with Article 11(a) of the Procedure, the WIPO Center formally notified the Respondent of the Objection, and the proceedings commenced on April 22, 2013. In accordance with Article 11(b) and relevant communication provisions of the Procedure, the Response was timely filed with the WIPO Center on May 22, 2013. The WIPO Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the Panel in this matter on June 13, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the WIPO Center to ensure compliance with Article 13(c) of the Procedure and Paragraph 9 of WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Intel® Remote Configuration Certificate Utility Frequently Asked Questions
    Intel® Remote Configuration Certificate Utility Frequently Asked Questions General Info 1. What operating system do I have to use to run the wizard? 2. What configurations are required prior to running the wizard? 3. What user privileges do I need to have in order to run the application? 4. Why do I have to use Certificate Authority? 5. How does certificate signing work? 6. Can different users and servers be used to generate a certificate? 7. Is it possible to make a back-up of the private key? 8. Do I need to own the domain that I am going to use for purchasing a certificate? 9. Does this tool provision a client system for me? Certificate Install 10. Do I have to use your wizard to install the certificate? 11. How can I access the certificate after it is installed? 12. What are the next steps after I install the certificate? Working with Vendors 13. How do I determine if a certificate response is valid? 14. How do I save the certificate response? GoDaddy* 15. Can I use GoDaddy’s ‘Standard SSL’? 16. What should I enter in the “Company Name” field in the wizard, if I have purchased a certificate from GoDaddy? Comodo* 17. What certificates does Comodo support? VeriSign* 18. What certificates are supported by VeriSign managed PKI accounts? 19. How does the May 17, 2009 VeriSign Root migration affect remote configuration certificates? Other Considerations 20. What needs to be done in the Certificate Authority to support UCC Certificates? 21. What if I want to install a certificate type the utility does not recommend? Return to Top General Info Q1.
    [Show full text]
  • TCPA’S Business Objectives
    Trusted Computing Platform Alliance: The Mother(board) of all Big Brothers Lucky Green c y p h e r p u n k s . t o TCPA’s Business Objectives | Prevent use of unlicensed software. | Digital Rights Management (DRM). z Prevent CD ripping and DivX creation. z Plug “analog hole.” z Enable information flow control. | Make PC the core of the home entertainment center, growing overall market. | Meet operational needs of law enforcement and intelligence services (FBI, Homeland, NSA, non-U.S. law enforcement). TCPA’s Technical Objectives | Prevent the owner of a computer from obtaining root access. | Enforce three levels of access privileges: z Privileged access [TCPA members only]. z Underprivileged access [platform owner]. z Unprivileged access [non-TCPA applications]. TCPA Heritage | To succeed where previous efforts have failed: z Processor ID (Intel, 1995-1998). z Encrypted CPU instruction sets (Intel, 1995-TCPA Phase II). z International Cryptography Framework (HP, 1996). z Smartcards on motherboard (IBM, ongoing). TCPA History | Founded in 1999 by: z Intel z Microsoft z HP z Compaq z IBM TCPA Membership Profile | The TCPA is a forum of platform product vendors. z CPU: • Intel, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Motorola. z BIOS/Chips: • Phoenix/Award, American Megatrends (AMI), National Semiconductor. z Security: • VeriSign, Wave Systems, RSA Security, Check Point, Certicom, Trend Micro, Symantec, Tripwire, Crypto AG [NSA]. z Applications: • Microsoft, Adobe. z Systems: • HP, IBM, Dell, Gateway, Fujitsu, Samsung, Toshiba. TCPA’s 170+ Member Companies 360 Degree Web Ethentica Microsoft Corporation SPYRUS, Inc. 3Com Corp. Excalibur Solutions, Inc Mitac International Corporation SSH Communications Security, Inc. Access360 FARGOS Development, LLC Mobile-Mind, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Website Payments Pro Developer's Guide
    Website Payments Pro Developer’s Guide © 2006 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved. PayPal, the PayPal logo, Payflow, and Payflow Pro are registered trademarks of PayPal Inc. Other trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. The information in this document belongs to PayPal Inc. It may not be used, reproduced or disclosed without the written approval of PayPal Inc. PayPal (Europe) Ltd. is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom as an electronic money institution. PayPal FSA Register Number: 226056. Notice of Non-Liability PayPal Inc. is providing the information in this document to you “AS-IS” with all faults. PayPal Inc. makes no warranties of any kind (whether express, implied or statutory) with respect to the information contained herein. PayPal Inc. assumes no liability for damages (whether direct or indirect), caused by errors or omissions, or resulting from the use of this document or the information contained in this document or resulting from the application or use of the product or service described herein. PayPal Inc. reserves the right to make changes to any information herein without further notice. PayPal Inc. does not guarantee that the features described in this document will be announced or made available to anyone in the future. Contents Preface . 7 Intended Audience . 7 Scope . 7 Organisation of This Document . 7 Where to Go for More Information . 8 How to Contact Customer Service . 8 Chapter 1 Website Payments Pro Overview . 9 How Website Payments Pro Works . 9 Supported Transactions . 10 Supported Currencies . 10 Direct Payment Overview . 11 PayPal Express Checkout Overview.
    [Show full text]
  • Financefinance Ough Agesthe Ages T R Ade
    thr FinanceFinance ough agesthe ages t r ade Man’s first foray into personal finance took the form of barter – the exchange of what one had for what one needed. In ancient Egypt, farmers deposited their harvested grain in state-owned grain banks until they could be traded for other goods. For the Aztec Indians of Central America, the cacao seed (from which chocolate is derived) was the mainstay of one’s wealth, and used to obtain food, slaves... even gold. In contrast, natives on the Western Caroline Islands, southwest of Guam, utilized great carved wheels of stone which they rolled from place to place to exchange for commodities and services. Though widely utilized throughout the world, these forms of finance had their drawbacks: grain could be consumed by vermin and was subject to rot. Cacao seeds quickly became too bulky for large transactions. And because of their unwieldy size, stone wheels limited the area in which one could carry out personal business. Clearly, some other form of finance needed to be devised. Corporate Profile Intuit’s mission is to revolutionize the way individuals and small businesses manage their finances. Today, with 15 million customers and more than 3,500 dedicated and entrepre- neurial employees, Intuit is emerging as the leader in electronic finance (e-finance). Our products and services enable people to connect to a wide range of financial resources and destinations—from banks and insurance companies to lenders, investment firms and tax agencies. At the same time, we are creating links between these destinations, with the ultimate goal of completely interconnecting—and simplifying—all aspects of a person’s financial life.
    [Show full text]
  • Booking Holdings Inc
    Filing ID #20018465 PerIODIC TrANSACTION rePOrT Clerk of the House of Representatives • legislative Resource Center • 135 Cannon Building • Washington, DC 20515 fIler INfOrmATION Name: Hon. William R. Keating Status: Member State/District: MA09 TrANSACTIONS ID Owner Asset Transaction Date Notification Amount Cap. Type Date Gains > $200? Accenture plc Class A Ordinary P 03/17/2021 03/26/2021 $1,001 - $15,000 gfedc Shares (ACN) [ST] FIlINg STATuS: New SuBHOlDINg OF: Bill's IRA Alphabet Inc. - Class A (gOOgl) P 03/17/2021 03/26/2021 $1,001 - $15,000 gfedc [ST] FIlINg STATuS: New SuBHOlDINg OF: Bill's IRA ANTHEM INC NOTE CAll MAKE P 04/16/2021 04/16/2021 $15,001 - gfedc WHOlE 3.65000% 12/01/2027 $50,000 [CS] FIlINg STATuS: New SuBHOlDINg OF: Bill's IRA DESCRIPTION: 036752AB9 Aramark (ARMK) [ST] P 03/17/2021 03/26/2021 $1,001 - $15,000 gfedc FIlINg STATuS: New SuBHOlDINg OF: Bill's IRA AutoZone, Inc. (AZO) [ST] P 03/17/2021 03/26/2021 $1,001 - $15,000 gfedc FIlINg STATuS: New SuBHOlDINg OF: Bill's IRA Baxter International Inc. (BAX) P 03/17/2021 03/26/2021 $1,001 - $15,000 gfedc [ST] FIlINg STATuS: New ID Owner Asset Transaction Date Notification Amount Cap. Type Date Gains > $200? SuBHOlDINg OF: Bill's IRA Baxter International Inc. (BAX) P 04/14/2021 04/16/2021 $1,001 - $15,000 gfedc [ST] FIlINg STATuS: New SuBHOlDINg OF: Bill's IRA BECTON DICKINSON &CO NOTE P 03/30/2021 04/06/2021 $15,001 - gfedc CAll MAKE WHOlE 3.73400% $50,000 12/15/2024 [CS] FIlINg STATuS: New SuBHOlDINg OF: Bill's IRA DESCRIPTION: corporate bond BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Mistakes Small Businesses Make Online Sponsored by Verisign Small Business Owners Are Busy
    5 Mistakes Small Businesses Make Online Sponsored by Verisign Small business owners are busy. It’s difficult to focus the right amount of attention on all facets of your business when you’ve got both off- and online operations to juggle. So it’s no surprise that mistakes are made along the way. But when nine out of 10 U.S. consumers use the internet to look for local goods and services, and research a potential purchase,1 one mistake you can’t afford to make is neglecting your online presence. Here are a few common errors that many small businesses make online, and what you can do to help make sure your business is on the right track. 1. Using a social media page as your only web address Only 51% of small businesses have a website,2 yet 80% use social media.3 So for many small businesses, social media is key to growing your business. But how do your customers know where to find you on social media? One of the easiest ways to ensure customers can find you no matter where your online business is located is toregister a domain name and point it to your business’s social media page. Called domain forwarding, it works just like forwarding mail. You create a rule that automatically redirects anyone who visits your domain name to your page on Facebook, LinkedIn, Etsy or whatever social media platform you use as your business’s communications or e-commerce hub. Domain forwarding is easy to set up with your domain name registrar and can take as little as five minutes.
    [Show full text]