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

["Jordyn Buchanan" <jbuchanan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Register.com supports this statement.
 
Jordyn

________________________________

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:53 PM
To: 'Nevett, Jonathon'; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement


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.