<<<
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 11:03:44 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: "'Marcus Faure'" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20050722085420.451CC9576E@mail.intern.globvill.de> from Bhavin Turakhia at "Jul 22, 2005 02:24:22 pm"
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
OK, I am eager to see the next steps.
Thank you.
Marcus
>
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|