RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes

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

hi jon
 
any word?
 
bhavin


  _____  

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:42 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Cc: kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx; Tim Cole; John Jeffrey
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes



Here is an update on the .com RRA issue:

 

1.  VeriSign sent all registrars a version of the .com RRA for signature.

2.  The version VeriSign sent asking us to sign has revisions from the
version that ICANN and the Department of Commerce approved.

3.  VeriSign never pointed out the revisions to registrars.

4.  The revisions I found include the following:

                        a.  VeriSign added "its wholly owned subsidiaries"
as parties to the RRA.

                        b.  VeriSign added "its wholly owned subsidiaries"
as parties to the Confidentiality Agreement.

                        c.  Interestingly, VeriSign failed to add its wholly
owned subsidiaries to the SLA agreement whereby VeriSign is obligated to
registrars.

                        d.  VeriSign added some very slight changes to the
Section 6.8 notice provisions.

                        e.  VeriSign dropped the "Inc." on the signature
line of the RRA and the Confidentiality Agreement.   

4.  The RRA requires that ICANN approve any revisions in order for them to
be binding on registrars.

5.  I understand from ICANN that VeriSign sent them the revised version and
gave them one day to review.

6.  I also understand from ICANN that it did not approve the revisions, and
that they pointed out the issue with regard to VeriSign's subsidiaries.

7.  I have not received a response from VeriSign to numerous e-mails and
phone calls to discuss this matter. 

8.  VeriSign now is calling registrars encouraging them to sign the revised
version. 

9.  I and other registrar representatives are concerned of the precedent of
this matter.  VeriSign should not be permitted to send registrars a contract
that VeriSign claims that ICANN has approved and it hasn't.  Also, VeriSign
should not attempt to make changes to our contracts without informing us of
the changes.

 

A Way Forward:

 

A.	VeriSign should provide registrars with a list of wholly owned
subsidiaries, so that we know with which parties we are contracting. 

B.	In the interest of fairness and consistency, VeriSign should change
the SLA agreement to add its wholly owned subsidiaries to that agreement as
well. 

C.	As pointed out below, VeriSign should delete Section 6.15(a)(6) of
the RRA, which still refers to a Surety Instrument that VeriSign has removed
from all other parts of the contract.  This appears to be a simple mistake
that should easily be rectified. 

D.	The revised RRA should be sent to ICANN for approval.    

 

I have heard from a number of registrars who, absent some kind of
resolution, will simply print the version of the RRA that is currently
published on the ICANN website ignoring the revisions pointed out above.  My
hope is that VeriSign will engage in some constructive dialogue and help
resolve the issue before folks feel compelled to take that action.

 

Thanks.

 

Jon 

 


  _____  


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