[registrars] FW: Statement from the Registrars Constituency

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Vint Cerf has asked me to share his statement below with all of you in
response to our statement at the Lux meeting

Bhavin

-----Original Message-----
From: Vinton G. Cerf
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 3:16 AM
To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'
Cc: 'ICANN Board or Directors'
Subject: RE: Statement from the Registrars Constituency

Dear Bhavin,

I hope you also will share your note with the full registrar constituency
and also please share this response with them as well.

Board and staff are disappointed that we clearly failed to meet the
expectations of the community, notably the registrars. We have discussed
among ourselves and with the staff ways to improve our own communications,
conscious double-checking about critical policy matters, and transparent
communication with ICANN's constituencies. We will continue to work towards
improving our practices and will welcome feedback from you and others. 

I appreciated the candor of your comments and the careful reiteration of
concerns during the board/registrar contituency meeting. As painful as it
seemed at the time, I have great respect for candor if it is offered with a
constructive intent. ICANN has a difficult task in dealing with some many
different perspectives and interests; I hope that your colleagues will
appreciate that as well. 

Kind regards,

Vint
 

Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
+1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax
vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 8:09 AM
> To: vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Statement from the Registrars Constituency
> 
> 
> Dear Mr Vint Cerf,
> 
> Please find below a written copy of the statement of the Registrars
> Constituency that I read out at the Public Forum Luxembourg 
> meeting for your
> reference.
> 
> Thank you once again for patiently listening to the 
> Registrars, we hope to
> continue to engage in constructive conversation with you and 
> the ICANN Board
> at each meeting
> 
> Thanks
> Best Regards
> Bhavin Turakhia
> Founder, Chairman & CEO
> Directi
> 
> ==============================================================
> ==============
> ==
> 
> The statement of the registrars constituency is as follows -
> 
> "The Registrars trusted the ICANN Board and ICANN staff to 
> act on behalf of
> the ICANN community in negotiating a new contract with 
> Verisign for .net.
> 
> Registrars consider there to be a breach of trust by the 
> ICANN Board and the
> ICANN staff in approving a contract with Verisign that 
> contains significant
> changes from the draft .net agreement posted on the ICANN 
> website, without
> ANY public consultation. We consider this not only a breach 
> of trust but a
> breach of the transparency provision of the ICANN bylaws that 
> states that
> ICANN shall operate in an open and transparent manner and 
> consistent with
> procedures designed to ensure fairness, specifically the 
> bylaws state that
> ICANN would have a public comment period incase of changes that
> significantly effect 3rd parties and/or involve any 
> imposition or changes to
> pricing.
> 
> This is not the first time this has happened. When the new 
> transfers policy
> was implemented, the ICANN board aproved a change in the 
> Verisign RRA, that
> contained changes beyond purely for the purposes of the 
> transfers policy
> without any public consultation with the registrars. The 
> ICANN staff later
> on gave an undertaking to the registrars that this would not 
> happen again.
> It is the registrars view that this verbal undertaking was 
> breached by the
> ICANN staff.
> 
> The changes to the .net agreement that specifically concern 
> registrars are:
> 
> - 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. 
> We Registrars
> are shocked by this and want the maximum price fixed for the 
> duration of the
> entire agreement.
> 
> - Verisign is excluded from new consensus policies and powers 
> of the GNSO
> are consderably reduced by contract. We Registrars are 
> shocked by this and
> insist that Verisign continue to be subject to consensus policies.
> 
> - ICANN negotiation powers during renewal are significantly 
> curtailed in the
> .net contract. We Registrars are shocked by this and require 
> ICANN to retain
> the ability to negotiate terms, including lower pricing at the time of
> contract renewal.
> 
> We Registrars therefore insist for the following -
> 1. a re-opening and revision of the .net contract in view of 
> the fact that
> due process including the ICANN by-laws were not followed
> 2. assurances that due process will be followed in similar 
> circusmtances in
> the future
> 3. specific assurances that there is no way something similar 
> would occur in
> the dotCom contract
> 
> 100% of the registrars who are present here have agreed to 
> this statement.
> The list is included below
> 
> ascio
> anytimesites
> ausregistry
> tucows
> enom
> bulkregister
> core
> deusthce
> directi
> domainbank
> domainsonly
> apag
> godaddy
> wildwest
> bluerazor
> iholdings
> melbourne it
> name intelligence
> name.com
> namebay
> network solutions
> namesecure
> srsplus
> register.com
> solis
> domainclip
> tuonome
> dotster
> markmonitor
> gmo
> nominalia
> stargate
> schlund
> 
>