<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement
- To: bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [registrars] PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:58:07 -0700
- Cc: jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Go Daddy, Wild West, and Blue Razor support the statement.
Tim Ruiz
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [registrars] PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement
> From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, November 22, 2005 8:53 pm
> To: "'Nevett, Jonathon'" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> Just to be clear, apart from
> posting this to the comments
> yourself, please also send a
> confirmation to Jon or myself
> that you support this
> statement. Since I will be
> shortly sending this statement
> to the ICANN Board as an
> official statement from the
> constituency
>
> bhavin
> _________________________
> From:
> owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> g
> [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.
> icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22,
> 2005 7:30 PM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars]
> Registrars Statement on .com
> agreement
> Registrar Colleagues:
>
> The Registrar Constituency
> .com Working Group set up by
> Bhavin has drafted the
> following statement. Please
> feel free to sign on to the
> statement and to post it to
> the ICANN website -- to post
> comments, please send an
> e-mail to:
> settlement-comments@xxxxxxxxx.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
> We, the undersigned
> registrars, recommend against
> ICANN signing the
> proposed .com Registry
> Agreement. The following
> reflects those issues
> that are of foremost concern
> to registrars:
>
> 1. New Registry Services
>
> The proposed .com contract
> locks ICANN and VeriSign in
> for three years
> on a version of the consensus
> policy covering the standards
> and process
> for consideration of new
> registry services. The new
> registry services
> consensus policy process that
> recently was approved by the
> ICANN board
> is untested, and it is likely
> that the ICANN community will
> need to
> refine and improve it after it
> is implemented. A three year
> lock will
> unnecessarily handcuff ICANN
> and the ICANN community.
>
> We recommend the deletion of
> Sections 3.1(b)(v)(B) and
> 3.1(b)(v)(C), and
> allowing the existing ICANN
> policy development and
> refinement process to
> be used during the term of the
> agreement.
>
> 2. Registry Agreement
> Renewal
>
> According to its own Bylaws
> and the Memorandum of
> Understanding between
> ICANN and the United States
> Department of Commerce, one of
> ICANN's core
> missions is to promote
> competition. We understand
> that the current .com
> contract contains a
> "presumptive renewal"
> provision, which by its nature
> hinders competition. The
> proposed .com contract,
> however, goes much
> farther than the existing
> contract by strengthening the
> presumptive
> renewal and termination
> provisions on behalf of
> VeriSign, thereby making
> it virtually impossible for
> VeriSign to lose the .com
> registry and
> impossible to reap the
> benefits of competition.
> VeriSign should be
> appointed as the administrator
> of the .com registry, not its
> owner.
>
> We recommend reverting from
> Section 4.2 of the proposed
> .com agreement
> to the renewal terms of
> Section 25 of the current .com
> agreement, which
> requires a six month review of
> a "Renewal Proposal" provided
> by VeriSign
> and only under terms that are
> in "substantial conformity
> with the terms
> of registry agreements between
> ICANN and operators of other
> open TLDs.
> . ." ICANN also should
> strengthen the termination
> provisions currently
> contained in Section 6.1 of
> the proposed agreement by
> using the relevant
> text from Sections 16(B-E) of
> the current agreement.
>
> 3. Registry Fees
>
> The proposed .com contract
> would permit VeriSign to
> unilaterally raise
> registration fees by 7% per
> year. The existing .com
> contract and all
> gTLD registry agreements
> (other than the .net agreement
> with VeriSign,
> which was entered into without
> community input in violation
> of ICANN's
> Bylaws) require the registries
> to cost-justify any price
> increases. In
> an industry where the
> economics suggest that fees
> should be going down
> when there is competition, it
> is particularly troublesome
> and
> anti-competitive to grant a
> monopolist or a single source
> provider the
> unilateral right to increase
> costs without justification.
> Unfortunately, these fee
> increases would result in cost
> increases to
> individual registrants. We
> note that in the recent
> competitive process
> for .net, VeriSign
> significantly lowered its
> registry fees. There is no
> reason for unilateral cost
> increases for the larger .com
> registry.
>
> We recommend that the Board
> delete the current text of
> Section
> 7.3(d)(ii) and replace it with
> Section 22(A) of the current
> .com
> agreement requiring VeriSign
> to justify and ICANN to
> approve any
> proposed fee increase. If
> there is a dispute between
> ICANN and VeriSign
> over a cost increase, ICANN
> should have the right to seek
> competitive
> price proposals from other
> registry operators to ensure
> that the ICANN
> community receives the
> benefits of competition.
>
> 4. New ICANN Fees
>
> ICANN and VeriSign propose a
> new ICANN fee that would be
> assessed on
> VeriSign and passed on to the
> registrars. This fee would
> result in
> excess of approximately $150
> million dollars to ICANN, and
> would be an
> end run around the existing
> ICANN budget approval
> process. As proposed,
> ICANN staff has removed an
> important check on the ICANN
> budget process.
> All ICANN fees that impact
> registrants should be subject
> to the ICANN
> budget approval process and
> should not only be the subject
> of
> negotiations between VeriSign
> and ICANN.
>
> In addition to the changes
> suggested in number 3 above,
> we recommend the
> removal of Sections 7.3(g-h)
> in the proposed contract. Any
> transaction
> fees that ICANN needs to
> collect from registrars (and
> hence registrants)
> should be assessed through the
> current transaction fees
> charged by ICANN
> to registrars and be subject
> to the existing budget
> approval process.
>
> While we understand the desire
> to finalize the litigation, it
> should not
> be done so without a
> sufficient review process nor
> at the expense of
> major tenets of ICANN's
> mission. In its current form,
> it is a bad
> settlement for ICANN, the
> ICANN community, and the
> public-at-large. We,
> therefore, urge the ICANN
> Board to take advantage of the
> six month
> review of a "Renewal Proposal"
> contemplated in the existing
> .com
> agreement, which doesn't
> expire until November 2007.
> The Board should
> use this time to review the
> complicated contracts in their
> entirety,
> have a public comment period
> commensurate with the
> importance of the
> issue, and make the changes
> necessary to improve the
> agreement.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|