<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] FW: Statement from the Registrars Constituency
- To: Bhavin Turakhia <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Statement from the Registrars Constituency
- From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:01:52 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <200507170911.j6H9Bfd6023290@pechora.icann.org> from Bhavin Turakhia at "Jul 17, 2005 02:49:07 pm"
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Bhavin,
have we received another reaction from the board? I appreciate that Vint
commented on our statement, but what we need to see is action. I suggest
that you contact ICANN board and ask for a teleconf, either between you
and Vint or between the board and the constituency. I would not like to
see the process silently continueing until the current status is cast in
stone.
Yours,
marcus
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|