<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Recent verisign .com amendment
- To: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Recent verisign .com amendment
- From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:54:13 -0500
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcTFvut+/n8RZeZhTZ2kylvd1IGztgGXnuMg
- Thread-topic: [registrars] Recent verisign .com amendment
We agree with Bhavin that VeriSign's proposed amendment is overbroad and
problematic for a number of reasons. First, we recently have learned
that ICANN staff has consented to the form of VeriSign's proposed
amendment, although it is unclear whether staff approval without Board
approval is sufficient. Regardless, we are very concerned that there
wasn't involvement of the registrar community before such approval
apparently was granted. It is difficult to imagine a situation where
registrars more clearly would have an interest in the decisions being
made by ICANN than in a situation such as this - an attempt by a
Registry to materially change the rights afforded Registrars in their
respective contracts with that Registry. ICANN needs to operate in an
open and transparent manner and should not permit VeriSign to make such
changes without notice to and input from the affected Registrars.
Second, as Bhavin pointed out, in Paragraph 4 of the proposed amendment,
VeriSign sought a change in the manner in which the Registry-Registrar
Agreement could be amended in the future. It is clear that this
provision has absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of the
Transfer Policy. The provision serves, instead, to give VeriSign the
unilateral right to amend the Registry-Registrar Agreements in the
future on thirty days' notice, without ICANN approval, if VeriSign
believes the amendment is necessary to comply with an ICANN mandated
policy or procedure. The proposed amendment complicates the issue by
putting two provisions of the RRA in direct conflict -- Sections 6.1 and
6.5.
Finally, by stating in the amendment that "VERISIGN shall have no
obligation to undo a transfer in accordance with the Transfer Policy if
both REGISTRAR and the other Registrar to the dispute have not executed
amendments . . .," VeriSign is attempting to waive its obligation to
provide dispute resolutions services required under the Transfer Policy.
VeriSign has indicated that it interprets this language to permit it to
refuse to undo a transfer if either of the Registrars to the dispute has
not executed the amendment. The Transfer Policy clearly requires that
Registries provide first level dispute resolution services and "must"
undo a transfer within 14 days of a dispute decision to reverse a
transfer unless a court action is filed. There is no right in the rules
for registries to waive such obligations. None of the other registries
are requiring the execution of such an amendment let alone requiring the
signature of an overreaching amendment as a precondition to the registry
providing services required under the rules.
Regards,
Jon
Jonathon L. Nevett
Vice President, Policy
NetworkSolutions
13200 Woodland Park Road
Herndon, Virginia 20171
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:16 PM
To: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: [registrars] Recent verisign .com amendment
Hi all
The verisign com/net amendment sent out for the new transfers policy
also
adds this one more clause -
<snip>; provided, however, that if VGRS
determines that it is necessary to amend this Agreement to comply with
an
ICANN
mandated policy or procedure VGRS may amend or supplement this Agreement
upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Registrar.
This clause has no relevance to the transfers policy, but as such allows
verisign to amend their contract without having to execute the same in a
proper manner as we generally do with all amendments. I am not exactly
sure
abt the implications of this clause (maybe Mike Palage can help out
here)
and am wondering if this is alright to sign on? I have yet to hear from
my
legal cell about this. The issue is according to their email we need to
sign
and send in these amendments before 10th nov. Does anyone have any
comments
on this
Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
Founder, CEO and Chairman
DirectI
--------------------------------------
http://www.directi.com
Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600
Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510
Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172 ext 7600
Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500 ext 7600
--------------------------------------
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|