Re: [ga] .com, and possible "material breach" of the contract

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

I agree with your remarks as do most of our members regarding "Sitefinder"
as a representation of a DISSERVICE to the Domain name holders as
wells as other stakeholders including registrants and users.

ICANN has given away .COM for a number of other considerations,
least of which is Verisign will actively and in a positive way lobby
and market for ICANN itself.  This is no small compensation or
stipulation.

What's very disturbing to me and our members is that as ICANN is
supposed to be a non-profit corporation it now has the right to
collect fees (Basically a Tax) or registrants with this agreement and
also determine what those fees are with a built in increase on an
annual basis.  Such represents the power of the purse.  As such
I feel this is not legitimate for a supposed non-profit corporation
in accordance with the relevant law there unto pertaining.


George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> According to paragraph 25.B.(a) of the existing .com Agreement:
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01.htm
>
> "Following consideration of the Renewal Proposal, Registry Operator
> shall be awarded a four-year renewal term unless ICANN demonstrates
> that: (a) Registry Operator is in material breach of this Registry
> Agreement,"
>
> Given that failure to comply with Appendix W of the registry agreement,
> relating to the $200 million in R&D spending would constitute a
> "material breach" of the agreement, I hereby formally request that
> ICANN produce copies of VeriSign's required annual reports. Appendix W
> can be seen at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appw-net-org-16apr01.htm
>
> I also formally request that ICANN produce a comment or status report
> document VeriSign's progress towards "implementing the Universal Whois
> Service by 31 December 2002" which was required in Appendix W. It's my
> understanding that Michael Palage was taking "a couple of days to look
> into" acquiring those reports 2 years ago.
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00824.html
>
> I trust that ICANN will extend the comment period for the proposed
> VeriSign settlement, until such time as those reports are produced for
> public discussion.
>
> These will allow the community to determine whether ICANN is in
> material breach of the .com contract.
>
> Also, section 25.B.b) mentions "(b) Registry Operator has not provided
> and will not provide a substantial service to the Internet community in
> its performance under this Registry Agreement". I would argue that
> SiteFinder (and I'm sure others can produce other examples) might
> constitute a material example of a substantial DISSERVICE to the
> internet community, which affected the security and stability of the
> internet. I would like ICANN counsel's analysis of whether this
> argument has possible validity.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience 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
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827