RE: [registrars] .NET Agreement Update

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

Hi,

Infact I believe what we need to do is the following -

Take out the abstract of changes we have made in the .NET RRA, and form a
single statement from that abstract.

We will then make that statement as the Constituency's official position.

We will then get everyone within the constituency to sign onto that
statement and send it out to ICANN so that there is NO confusion about the
support towards that statement

Jon Nevett: can you prepare a single statement of that sort and send it to
me?

bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:31 PM
> To: Marcus Faure; michael@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] .NET Agreement Update
> 
> I couldn't agree more.  I don't believe that ICANN's 
> statement in the Update that "there is not a consensus among 
> registrars regarding price"
> is accurate.  The following provision was included in the 
> draft changes to the .Net RRA proposed by the RC Taskforce.  
> I believe that this provision has a consensus of the 
> Registrar Constituency.  
> 
> "i.	Notwithstanding the above, at no time during the term of the
> Agreement, shall the fees for initial registrations, renewal 
> registrations, and/or transfer registrations exceed US $3.50, 
> plus a US
> $0.75 ICANN fee per annual increment."
> 
> Due to the realities of the situation with .net, however, 
> some registrars may have informed ICANN that they also 
> support one or more of the other positions included in the 
> Update in addition to the consensus position.  Such support 
> should not be viewed as lack of support of the consensus position.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marcus Faure
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 10:18 AM
> To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [registrars] .NET Agreement Update
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> it is great to see that we are being heard. However, there 
> seems to be some confusion in that announcement. We have 
> forwarded a unanimous position to ICANN, yet the announcement 
> speaks about a number of positions.
> For me the bottomline is that there was no need for ICANN to 
> change the draft agreement.
> In any case, if ICANN asks for public input, I suggest we give it.
> @Bhavin: Can you organise a formal position of the RC? I am 
> not sure if we can use the paper that we voted on in 
> Luxembourg can be reused.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19aug05.htm
> > 
> 
>