RE: [registrars] FW: Statement from the Registrars Constituency

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

Hi marcus

The wheels are in motion ..... If there is an issue that the constituency
has taken up, you can be rest assured, I will put in my best efforts until
the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the constituency

bhavin 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marcus Faure
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 1:32 PM
> To: Bhavin Turakhia
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Statement from the Registrars 
> Constituency
> 
> 
> 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>