RE: [registrars] Statement regarding .net

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Rob,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I think the part of the agreement you are refering to was in the
draft agreement that was up for public comment. So I don't think we'll
have the same leverage to change it. I also don't think it will have
the same level of agreement among registrars. I think it is best left
out of this effort&nbsp;at this point.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim</div>
<div><BR><BR>&nbsp;</div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[registrars] Statement regarding .net<BR>From: "Rob Hall"
&lt;rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Mon, July 11, 2005 9:53 am<BR>To:
"Bruce Tonkin"
&lt;Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,<BR>registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Bruce,<BR><BR>I
would suggest adding the fact that the new contract allows verisign
to<BR>treat Registrars differently, rather than with equality or
equivalence.<BR><BR>Rob<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin<BR>Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:39 AM<BR>To:
registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: [registrars] Statement regarding
.net<BR><BR><BR>Hello All,<BR><BR>As agreed here is a possible
statement for presentation by Bhavin to the<BR>Board during the public
forum in Luxembourg.<BR><BR>"Registrars trusted the ICANN Board and
ICANN staff to act on behalf of<BR>the ICANN community in negotiating a
new contract with Verisign for<BR>.net.<BR><BR>Registrars consider there
to be a breach of trust by the ICANN Board and<BR>the ICANN staff in
approving a contract with Verisign regarding .net<BR>that contains
significant changes from the draft .net agreement posted<BR>on the
ICANN website, without public consultation. &nbsp; We believe this
is<BR>a breach of the intent of the transparency provision
&nbsp;(Article III) of<BR>the ICANN bylaws that states that ICANN shall
operate to the extent<BR>feasible in an open and transparent manner and
consistent with<BR>procedures designed to ensure fairness.<BR><BR>This
is not the first time this has happened. &nbsp; When the new
transfers<BR>policy was implemented, Verisign negotiated a change in
the<BR>registry-registrar agreement with the ICANN staff, which was
approved by<BR>the ICANN Board, to accommodate the transfers policy
that contained<BR>changes beyond purely for the purposes of the
transfers policy without<BR>any public consultation. &nbsp; ICANN staff
gave an undertaking to registrars<BR>that this would not happen again.
&nbsp; It is the registrars view that this<BR>verbal undertaking was
breached.<BR><BR>The changes to the .net agreement that specifically
concern registrars<BR>are:<BR>- the maximum price ($4.25 including the
ICANN registry fee) put forward<BR>by Verisign in the .net application
only applies for the first 18 months<BR>of the new agreement. &nbsp;
After that Verisign is free is set any price.<BR>Registrars want the
maximum price fixed for the duration of the<BR>agreement.<BR>- Verisign
is excluded from new consensus policies that relate to
the<BR>introduction of new registry services other than what is in the
new .net<BR>agreement. &nbsp; Registrars want Verisign to continue to
be subject to<BR>consensus policies in this area.<BR>- ICANN may not
change the above terms in a renewal of the agreement.<BR>Registrars
want ICANN to have the ability to negotiate a lower maximum<BR>price at
the time of contract renewal." </BLOCKQUOTE>