RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes

["Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,
 
Thanks for the update. 
 
When will you be posting the other agreements so we can all review them
and offer comments to them.  I am enthused that other registries want to
work with us like this.
 
I would also be interested in knowing how many Registrars are just
printing the ICANN published version and sending it in.  Did Verisign
accept it, reject it or not even notice ?
 
Rob.

________________________________

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 5:20 PM
To: Bhavin Turakhia; Registrars Constituency
Cc: kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx; Tim Cole; John Jeffrey
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes



Bhavin:

I have not heard back from VeriSign on this issue.  It appears that
VeriSign prefers to receive two different versions of the RRA from
various registrars.

Interestingly, I have heard from other registries that have asked us to
review their RRAs before they even send them to ICANN.   It is
unfortunate that VeriSign is not taking the same collaberative approach.

Thanks.

Jon

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Wednesday, December 27, 2006 08:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Nevett, Jonathon; 'Registrars Constituency'
Cc:     kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx; 'Tim Cole'; 'John Jeffrey'
Subject:        RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes

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-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