ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Statement regarding .net

  • To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Rob Hall'" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Statement regarding .net
  • From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:20:17 +0200
  • Cc: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <20050711151514.30273.qmail@webmail01.mesa1.secureserver.net>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcWGLDqdvIgD9ZOSS16kNOf6Iups6wAeXgdw

hi tim
could you point me to that section?


From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:15 PM
To: Rob Hall
Cc: Bruce Tonkin; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Statement regarding .net

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 at
this point.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] Statement regarding .net
From: "Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 11, 2005 9:53 am
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,


I would suggest adding the fact that the new contract allows verisign to
treat Registrars differently, rather than with equality or equivalence.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:39 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Statement regarding .net

Hello All,

As agreed here is a possible statement for presentation by Bhavin to the
Board during the public forum in Luxembourg.

"Registrars trusted the ICANN Board and ICANN staff to act on behalf of
the ICANN community in negotiating a new contract with Verisign for

Registrars consider there to be a breach of trust by the ICANN Board and
the ICANN staff in approving a contract with Verisign regarding .net
that contains significant changes from the draft .net agreement posted
on the ICANN website, without public consultation.   We believe this is
a breach of the intent of the transparency provision  (Article III) of
the ICANN bylaws that states that ICANN shall operate to the extent
feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with
procedures designed to ensure fairness.

This is not the first time this has happened.   When the new transfers
policy was implemented, Verisign negotiated a change in the
registry-registrar agreement with the ICANN staff, which was approved by
the ICANN Board, to accommodate the transfers policy that contained
changes beyond purely for the purposes of the transfers policy without
any public consultation.   ICANN staff gave an undertaking to registrars
that this would not happen again.   It is the registrars view that this
verbal undertaking was breached.

The changes to the .net agreement that specifically concern registrars
- the maximum price ($4.25 including the ICANN registry fee) put forward
by Verisign in the .net application only applies for the first 18 months
of the new agreement.   After that Verisign is free is set any price.
Registrars want the maximum price fixed for the duration of the
- Verisign is excluded from new consensus policies that relate to the
introduction of new registry services other than what is in the new .net
agreement.   Registrars want Verisign to continue to be subject to
consensus policies in this area.
- ICANN may not change the above terms in a renewal of the agreement.
Registrars want ICANN to have the ability to negotiate a lower maximum
price at the time of contract renewal." 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>