RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

jon: any updates on this? Verisign has started making phone calls to us (and
presumably others) telling us that we need to sign this by december
 
- Bhavin


  _____  

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:39 AM
To: 'Nevett, Jonathon'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes


do let us know any updates you recv from them ... we are putting ours on a
stall too until an update
 
thanks for your note


  _____  

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:17 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes
Importance: High



All:  I just sent this note to VeriSign.  I hope that VeriSign will handle
this issue shortly, but we are waiting until it is resolved before taking
any action with the draft agreement.  Thanks.  Jon


  _____  


From: Nevett, Jonathon 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:35 AM
To: Dahlquist, Raynor
Cc: 'mshull@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RRA Changes
Importance: High

 

Dear Raynor:

 

We received a letter yesterday from VeriSign dated December 6th requesting
that we execute an attached copy of the new Registry-Registrar Agreement for
the .com regsitry.  The letter states that the agreement provided is "the
new ICANN approved .COM Registry-Registrar Agreement that will take effect
and supersede your existing .COM Registry-Registrar Agreement with VeriSign,
Inc on 30 December 2006." 

 

In the abundance of caution, we compared the copy of the agreement attached
to the letter with the agreement actually approved by the ICANN Board and
the U.S. Department of Commerce as Exhibit 8 to the .com Registry Agreement
(http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-settlement/revised-appendix8-clean-29jan06
.pdf), and there are both substantive and non-substantive differences
between the version VeriSign sent to us for execution and the version
approved by ICANN and the DOC.  These changes include adding various
VeriSign-affiliated parties to the agreement.  

 

I brought this situation to ICANN's attention.  According to Kurt Pritz,
ICANN was aware of  VeriSign's request to ICANN to make the substantive and
non-substantive changes, but stated in no uncertain terms that ICANN has not
"approved or adopted" any changes to the RRA as required in Section 6.1.
Therefore, VeriSign's statement that ICANN approved the version of the
agreement sent to us is false.  Moreover, not only did VeriSign misrepresent
that it received ICANN approval to change the agreement, it also failed to
inform registrars of the changes from the version posted on the ICANN
website.  

 

I find it remarkable that VeriSign would try to change the terms of the RRA
in this manner, regardless of the substance of the changes.  This kind of
behavior is unacceptable and violates the terms and spirit of our
relationship.  Indeed, we should be trying to engage in a period of healing
after the long and sometimes bitter dispute over the advisability of the new
.com registry agreement.  Instead, VeriSign apparently is engaging in
deceptive and obfuscating behavior.

 

First, please let me know how you plan on rectifying this situation.
Second, we should discuss a procedure for making future changes to the .com
and .net RRAs so we don't continue to repeat this same scenario every few
years.   As per the terms of the contract, ICANN must approve any changes to
the agreement.  As a transparent organization, ICANN should give the other
party to the agreement - the registrars - an opportunity to review and
comment on proposed changes before they are approved.  It is irrelevant
whether VeriSign or ICANN believes that such changes are substantive.  Any
changes to a contract to which registrars are a party should be shared with
us before they are approved.  Something that may appear to be benign to
ICANN or VeriSign might have some unintended consequence to other parties to
the agreement.  Third, if VeriSign does seek to change certain provisions of
the agreement from the version ICANN and the DOC recently approved, I
suggest that it seek to delete Section 6.15(a)(6), which still refers to a
Surety Instrument that VeriSign removed from all other parts of the
contract.

 

I look forward to hearing back from you.

 

Best,

 

Jon

 

Jonathon L. Nevett

Vice President and Chief Policy Counsel

NetworkSolutions