Re: [ga] Verisign-ICANN settlement agreement -- thumbs down

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  Did anyone expect anything much different than such from ICANN?
I sure didn't!

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The proposed settlement agreement is at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24oct05.htm
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/settlement-agreements.htm
>
> After a quick first pass through the materials, it looks like ICANN
> really caved in, and didn't act in the interest of domain registrants.
>
> According to Section 7.3(d)(ii) of:
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/com-registry-agreement-22sep05.pdf
>
> VeriSign will be able to raise .com prices by up to 7% per year. That's
> absurd, given the economies of scale they've realized running a
> registry with 43 million names (see www.dailychanges.com), compared to
> a much lower level when the .com registry agreement was first
> negotiated years ago. Indeed, Tucows went on the record in Shanghai:
>
> http://www.icann.org/shanghai/captioning-afternoon-30oct02.htm
>
> "But in case there is any concern or hesitation in that regard, if any
> of the registry contracted parties are unhappy with price, the central
> term in any such contract, and are willing to rebid or reopen some of
> the registry contracts, specifically Tucows will put an offer on the
> table at a $2 a name registry price."
>
> $2 is much less than the price .com names will be after VeriSign gets
> through gouging consumer through its monopoly over .com registry
> services.
>
> It's been said before, but it bears repeating that in view of ICANN's
> abysmal effort, how can they say they've not been captured by VeriSign?
> Hopefully the GNSO, if ICANN is a "bottoms-up, consensus building
> organization" will vocally oppose this pathetic settlement.
>
> By the way, in the old contract, VeriSign was commited to spending $200
> million in R&D:
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-net-org-16apr01.htm
>
> I had only pointed that out about a gazillion times, see:
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-net-org-16apr01.htm
>
> Since those annual reports were never made public, despite Michael
> Palage's statement:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00824.html
>
> "Give me a couple of days to look into"
>
> almost TWO YEARS ago, I suppose it was easier to simply wipe out those
> R&D requirements (I could not find any reference to R&D requirements in
> the new contract), relieving VeriSign of a big obligation, than to hold
> them to improvements that  would benefit the community.
>
> I won't even bother to comment on "new registry services" -- that's a
> future battle if/when VeriSign tries to reinstate SiteFinder.
>
> A big thumbs down to ICANN's "negotiators". Shame on ICANN. Shame on
> VeriSign. I hope ICANN insiders get their just rewards, when "ICANN
> Experience" is a blemish on their CVs, being recognized as an
> association with failure.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827