RE: [registrars] Last day of .net public comment period

["Mitchell, Champ" <Cmitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marcus,

While your email does not expressly state it, the clear implication is
that all registrars agreed on all three points you list. As you know,
that is not true. Your second point, volume discounts, was one on which
there was strong disagreement among those present. Bhavin tried to raise
it with Vint present as a registrar concern. That was openly challenged
and disputed at that time and at all times before and since. Clearly
many of us are concerned about volume discounts, but our concerns are
far from uniform. Some are concerned that volume discounts might be
given and do not want them. Others, such as us, are concerned that
volume discounts are not given, believe that they should be given so
long as they are equally available to all and believe that without them
we will continue to carry an unfair and unequivalent portion of the cost
of administering the system.  I really do not want to start the debate
again since we will never agree. However, I could not let this potential
misimpression go by without noting it.

Since we cannot agree on a result that we would all like to see, it is
best to leave the substance of that issue for another day and another
forum, which is what we decided at Luxembourg. We wanted to focus on the
concerns upon which we could speak with a unified voice in the hopes of
getting those changes. While we have not gotten all that we would want,
given the hole we started in with ICANN having signed an agreement
before we knew of the problems in it, we have probably gotten about all
that we can hope for. All of us are troubled that there is no absolute
cap on the registry fee. However, as many have said, the most important
thing is to not let this happen when .com comes up for renewal.  

Hope you are well. Best, Champ

W. G. Champion Mitchell
      Chairman & CEO
 

O: (703) 668-5200   |  www.networksolutions.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marcus Faure
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:48 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Last day of .net public comment period


Hi,

today is the last day to public comment period on the .net proposed
amandment.
So far there is only one comment. I have just submitted the statement
below.
I ask all registrars to take a stand and raise your voice in this forum.
If
we think that .net is important, we should demonstrate it. A "me too" is
good, new aspects are even better.

Yours,
Marcus




----- Forwarded message from Marcus Faure -----

>From faure@xxxxxxxxxxx  Mon Oct 10 15:44:01 2005
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Message-ID: <434A6FF8.1020804@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:43:20 +0200
From: Marcus Faure <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: net-amendment-comments@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Aspects from registrars' and .net bidders' perspective
X-Virus-Scanned: Global Village AntiVirus @
mail.intern.global-village.de
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on 
	brian.voerde.globvill.de
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0
tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS 
	autolearn=ham version=3.0.0
X-Spam-Level: 

Dear all,

we, CORE Council of Registrars, are very concerned about the .net 
reassignment
process.
During the Call for Proposals ICANN has not met a single deadline it 
restricted
itself to. The Telcordia report has received a lot of criticism, not 
only from
bidders, but also from all ICANN constituencies and the internet
community.
Telcordia in turn explicitly mentioned that many of the aspects relevant

for a
decision of the ICANN board were outside of the scope of the report.
Those
aspects were raised by the bidders several times, but have not been 
considered
by the Board. A prominent example is the top rating for Verisign in the
category "ICANN compliance" who is in a pending legal conflict with 
ICANN for
being non-compliant ("Sitefinder").
While we believe that Verisign would not have become its own successor
when
those aspects would have been addressed, this would have been a choice
that
primarily affects those who participated in the .net Call for Proposals.

Unfortunately the selection did not mark the end of issues as ICANN has
decided to negotiate the terms of the .net agreement with Verisign to
the disadvantage of registrars and domain owners. That modified
agreement
has been signed by ICANN without public consultation which is in
conflict
with ICANN principles. It is therefore questionable if the agreement is
valid.

The registrars constituency has presented a joint statement during the
Luxembourg meeting that primarily raised concerns about the following 
aspects
of the modified agreement:
 1. Removal of price cap for .net domains
 2. Introduction of volume discounts
 3. Removal of ICANN policy compliance obligations
During the Luxembourg meeting Verisign has announced to address those
issues
and to renegotiate the agreement. The result partially responds to
concern
no. 1, but does not address concerns nos. 2 und and 3.
ICANN presented a summary of all concerns including the registrars' 
concerns.
While we welcome this step, we feel that the registrars' statement is
underrepresented in that summary as it is not clear which points
received
support from the registrar community. It is worthwhile mentioning that
100%
of the registrars represented in Luxembourg signed the statement,
including
most of the top registrars.

Speaking as a .net bidder, we feel that the reassignement process was
not
performed with the necessary professionalism as the basis for the board
decision must not have been limited to the Telcordia report. Also, we
fail
to understand why ICANN allows the selected party to change the proposed
agreement in its favour. If the board relies on the Telcordia report, it
should have noticed that all bidders were able to run .net and that
there
has never been a need to renegotiate the terms of the proposed
agreement.
We are sure that all bidders except Verisign would have and still would
except and sign the draft agreement without changes.


So our summary is:

 From a registrar's perspective, ICANN has not yet addressed the 
concerns raised.
 From a .net bidder's perspective, ICANN has not treated the bidders
equally


CORE has always supported ICANN and demanded a strong regulator to
ensure
a fair and equal business. We are sorry to state that in the
reassignment
process ICANN has not met our expectations. It is difficult to
understand
why a regulator favours the ex-monopolist.
We feel that the solution of this issue is crucial. We therefore urge
the
ICANN board to carefully consider the next steps. If ICANN wants to be a
strong regulator, it should start regulating. It is certainly difficult
to
start this late, but it will be more difficult to explain how ICANN will
fulfill its core mission if this important issue can not be settled.

Yours sincerly,

Marcus Faure
CORE Council of Registrars

----- End of forwarded message from Marcus Faure -----