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

[Alexander Schwertner <as@xxxxxxx>]

EPAG Domainservices GmbH supports this statement.

Alexander Schwertner



Bhavin Turakhia schrieb:
> 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
>     <mailto: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.
> 

-- 
Geschäftsführer / Managing Director
EPAG Domainservices GmbH

Koblenzer Str. 112
D-53177 Bonn
Germany

phone:  (+49) 228 - 32 968 134
fax:    (+49) 228 - 32 968 49
mobile: (+49) 177 - 777 92 19

email:  as@xxxxxxx
internet: http://www.epag.de

---------------------------------------------------------------
  EPAG is an ICANN-accredited Registrar, member with several
  ccTLD-registries and registers more than 100 TLDs worldwide
---------------------------------------------------------------