Re: [registrars] Other Registries looking at pursuing similar contracts

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Equivalent terms in the registry contracts, combined with the addition
of new registry operators, would serve, not hinder, registrar interests.
dotCom is an obvious and vexing exception to this, but we should be
seeking to work with the registries to implement fair, even and
equivalent terms for all that we can work with to ensure that there is
robust competition in place at the registry level. We do not have this
today and further regulation in this area (i.e. sTLDs) is only serving
to further undermine ICANNs mission and the viability of our respective
operations.

On 26/07/2005 8:21 AM Bhavin Turakhia noted that;
> Hi,
> 
> I did not complete my original statement below.
> 
> What I needed to add is that I know of atleast one Registry (and maybe more)
> who is looking at using the provision below to negotiate an equalization of
> terms in their contracts too.
> 
> It would be catastrophic if every TLD Registry began to use this below
> provision to get an equalization of terms in their contract.
> 
> Bhavin
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:29 PM
>>To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [registrars] Equal access provision for registries too
>>
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>One more aspect to consider is even registries apparently 
>>have an equal access provision as below in their contracts. 
>>
>>Refer specifically to provision 2.1.3. nelow -
>>
>>section 2.1 of the Agreement as below:
>>http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt
>>-11may01.htm
>>
>>"2.1. General Obligations of ICANN. With respect to all 
>>matters that affect the rights, obligations, or role of 
>>Registry Operator, ICANN shall during the Term of this Agreement:
>>
>>2.1.1. exercise its responsibilities in an open and 
>>transparent manner;
>>
>>2.1.2. not unreasonably restrain competition and, to the 
>>extent feasible, promote and encourage robust competition;
>>
>>2.1.3. not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices 
>>arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and not single out 
>>Registry Operator for disparate treatment unless justified by 
>>substantial and reasonable cause; and
>>
>>2.1.4. ensure, through its reconsideration and independent 
>>review policies, adequate appeal procedures for Registry 
>>Operator, to the extent it is adversely affected by ICANN 
>>standards, policies, procedures or practices."
>>
>>
>>bhavin
>>
> 
> 


- --






                      -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFC5jbQ6sL06XjirooRAudtAJ9hqVsRNDi25yYT/DGMj9lcF2rKZgCePVd+
opUk492mzbyM0itsQYKmu5U=
=4LoA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----