RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No response to my e-mail.  I have calls into VeriSign and ICANN to
discuss next steps.  Thanks.  Jon

 

________________________________

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:17 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes

 

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-29j
an06.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