[registrars] RE: (SPAM: 5.701) Reply to your Request for Concerns about dotcom settlement from the Registrars

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I forgot to add two more Registrars who were also signatories to the
statement (bringing the count to 60) -

Intercosmos Media Group dba directNIC.com
Domain Contender

Look forward to seeing all of you in Vancouver shortly :)

Thanks
Bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 9:48 PM
> To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann-board@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: (SPAM: 5.701) Reply to your Request for Concerns 
> about dotcom settlement from the Registrars
> 
> Dear Bhavin,
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to prepare this material and to 
> establish the
> support base it has among the registrar community. I look 
> forward to further
> discussions this week. Please note that it is my belief that this week
> should be devoted to understanding clearly the concerns of 
> the registrars
> and, if possible, to establish any relative priorities. After 
> the Vancouver
> meeting, once all the inputs from the different 
> constituencies have been
> digested, we can then consider what steps, if any, might be 
> taken to reach a
> satisfactory conclusion. 
> 
> As the registrars list is copied, let me extend my 
> appreciation to this
> community for its efforts to coordinate this important input.
> 
> Vint
>  
> 
> 
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Google/Regus
> Suite 384
> 13800 Coppermine Road
> Herndon, VA 20171
>  
> +1 703 234-1823
> +1 703-234-5822 (f)
>  
> vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> www.google.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:04 AM
> To: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann-board@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: (SPAM: 5.701) Reply to your Request for Concerns about dotcom
> settlement from the Registrars
> 
> 
> Dear Vint,
> 
> Please find below a response from the Registrars Constituency 
> in reply to
> your attached email. The statement below has been signed by 
> 58 Registrars.
> The statement was circulated amongst the members of the Registrar
> Constituency.
> 
> Almost the entire majority of the Registrars who are members of the
> Registrars Constituency have agreed that the below represents 
> the primary
> concerns of Registrars with regards to the dotcom settlement.
> 
> The below concerns are NOT in a specific order of priority. 
> All of them are
> very important to all Registrars, and all of them are points 
> that we as
> Registrars are against.
> 
> We all look forward to seeing you and the Board at Vancouver
> 
> Thanks
> Bhavin Turakhia
> Chairman & CEO
> Directi Group
> 
> =================================================
> 
> We, the undersigned registrars, recommend against ICANN 
> signing the proposed
> .com Registry Agreement. The following reflects those issues 
> that are of
> foremost concern to registrars:
>  
>  
> 1.    New Registry Services 
>  
> The proposed .com contract locks ICANN and VeriSign in for 
> three years on a
> version of the consensus policy covering the standards and process for
> consideration of new registry services.  The new registry 
> services consensus
> policy process that recently was approved by the ICANN board 
> is untested,
> and it is likely that the ICANN community will need to refine 
> and improve it
> after it is implemented.  A three year lock will 
> unnecessarily handcuff
> ICANN and the ICANN community.
>  
> We recommend the deletion of Sections 3.1(b)(v)(B) and 
> 3.1(b)(v)(C), and
> allowing the existing ICANN policy development and refinement 
> process to be
> used during the term of the agreement.
>  
>  
> 2.    Registry Agreement Renewal
>  
> According to its own Bylaws and the Memorandum of 
> Understanding between
> ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, one of 
> ICANN's core
> missions is to promote competition.  We understand that the 
> current .com
> contract contains a "presumptive renewal" provision, which by 
> its nature
> hinders competition.  The proposed .com contract, however, 
> goes much farther
> than the existing contract by strengthening the presumptive 
> renewal and
> termination provisions on behalf of VeriSign, thereby making 
> it virtually
> impossible for VeriSign to lose the .com registry and 
> impossible to reap the
> benefits of competition.  VeriSign should be appointed as the 
> administrator
> of the .com registry, not its owner.
>  
> We recommend reverting from Section 4.2 of the proposed .com 
> agreement to
> the renewal terms of Section 25 of the current .com agreement, which
> requires a six month review of a "Renewal Proposal" provided 
> by VeriSign and
> only under terms that are in "substantial conformity with the terms of
> registry agreements between ICANN and operators of other open 
> TLDs. . ."
> ICANN also should strengthen the termination provisions 
> currently contained
> in Section 6.1 of the proposed agreement by using the 
> relevant text from
> Sections 16(B-E) of the current agreement.
>  
>  
> 3.    Registry Fees
>  
> The proposed .com contract would permit VeriSign to unilaterally raise
> registration fees by 7% per year.  The existing .com contract 
> and all gTLD
> registry agreements (other than the .net agreement with 
> VeriSign, which was
> entered into without community input in violation of ICANN's 
> Bylaws) require
> the registries to cost-justify any price increases.  In an 
> industry where
> the economics suggest that fees should be going down when there is
> competition, it is particularly troublesome and 
> anti-competitive to grant a
> monopolist or a single source provider the unilateral right 
> to increase
> costs without justification. Unfortunately, these fee 
> increases would result
> in cost increases to individual registrants.  We note that in 
> the recent
> competitive process for .net, VeriSign significantly lowered 
> its registry
> fees.  There is no reason for unilateral cost increases for 
> the larger .com
> registry.
>  
> We recommend that the Board delete the current text of 
> Section 7.3(d)(ii)
> and replace it with Section 22(A) of the current .com 
> agreement requiring
> VeriSign to justify and ICANN to approve any proposed fee 
> increase.  If
> there is a dispute between ICANN and VeriSign over a cost 
> increase, ICANN
> should have the right to seek competitive price proposals from other
> registry operators to ensure that the ICANN community 
> receives the benefits
> of competition.
>  
>  
> 4.    New ICANN Fees
>  
> ICANN and VeriSign propose a new ICANN fee that would be assessed on
> VeriSign and passed on to the registrars.  This fee would 
> result in excess
> of approximately $150 million dollars to ICANN, and would be 
> an end run
> around the existing ICANN budget approval process.  As 
> proposed, ICANN staff
> has removed an important check on the ICANN budget process. 
> All ICANN fees
> that impact registrants should be subject to the ICANN budget approval
> process and should not only be the subject of negotiations 
> between VeriSign
> and ICANN.   
>  
> In addition to the changes suggested in number 3 above, we 
> recommend the
> removal of Sections 7.3(g-h) in the proposed contract.  Any 
> transaction fees
> that ICANN needs to collect from registrars (and hence 
> registrants) should
> be assessed through the current transaction fees charged by ICANN to
> registrars and be subject to the existing budget approval process.
>  
>  
> While we understand the desire to finalize the litigation, it 
> should not be
> done so without a sufficient review process nor at the 
> expense of major
> tenets of ICANN's mission.  In its current form, it is a bad 
> settlement for
> ICANN, the ICANN community, and the public-at-large. We, 
> therefore, urge the
> ICANN Board to take advantage of the six month review of a "Renewal
> Proposal" contemplated in the existing .com agreement, which 
> doesn't expire
> until November 2007.  The Board should use this time to review the
> complicated contracts in their entirety, have a public comment period
> commensurate with the importance of the issue, and make the changes
> necessary to improve the agreement.
> 
> 
> =============================
> Signatories to this Statement
> =============================
> AAAQ Inc
> Ace of Domains
> Active 24
> Ascio
> AvidDomains
> Blue Razor
> Bulkregister
> CoolHandle Hosting
> CORE
> CSIRegistry
> Directi
> Domain Bank
> Domain Contender
> Domain Name Sales Inc
> DomainClip
> DomainHip
> DomainPeople Inc
> Domains Only
> DomainSystems, Inc.
> DotRegister
> Dotster
> EasyDNS
> Encirca
> Enom
> EPAG
> GMO
> GoDaddy
> Hosting.com
> Intercosmos
> Joker.com
> Key-Systems
> Melbourne IT
> Misk.com
> Moniker Online Services
> Name Intelligence, Inc
> Name.com
> Namebay
> Namesecure
> NameScout Corp
> NameShare
> NameStream.com, Inc
> Network Soln
> Nominalia
> PSI-USA, Inc
> PSi-Japan
> RallyDomains
> Register.com
> Register.it SpA
> SaveMoreNames.com
> Schlund+Partner
> Spot Domain LLC
> SRSPlus
> Total Registrations
> Tucows
> Vivid domains
> Wild West Domains
> ! #1 Host Kuwait, Inc
> ! #1 Host Malaysia, Inc.
> ! #1 Host United Kingdom, Inc
> !!! $0 CostDomains
>