Re: [registrars] PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement

["Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

CORE supports this statement. We even think this does not go far enough,
but it may be appropriate as the smallest common demoninator

Yours,
Marcus


> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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.
>