RE: [registrars] FW: RRAs

["Mitchell, Champ" <Cmitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kurt, I am glad to hear that ICANN "solicited and received information".
Now what are you going to do about it?

VeriSign has made modifications to the very contract Stratton said
publicly could not and would not be modified. We have been told ICANN
has not approved these changes. Clearly DOC has not approved. Obviously
this "unmodifiable" contract can be modified at Stratton's will, just
not if someone else thinks modification needed. 

Some registrars took the ICANN board approved, DOC approved version,
signed it and sent it back to VeriSign. VeriSign has refused to sign it
and returned yet again a version that is modified as they alone see fit.


Tell me, Kurt, why does ICANN even exist? 

In case you haven't noticed, VeriSign has just announced to the world by
these acts that you are impotent, toothless and not an entity they find
it necessary to worry about. Well, Stratton has proved he and Bob are
the smart ones so far in this, and ICANN may well prove this for him
again.  Happy New Year, Champ

W. G. Champion Mitchell
Chairman & CEO
Network Solutions Inc.
(703) 668-5200
NetworkSolutions
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:00 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: [registrars] FW: RRAs

All:  FYI.  Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:pritz@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:58 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: John Jeffrey; Tim Cole
Subject: Fwd: RRAs

Jon:

ICANN solicited and received this information regarding recent  
questions concerning the RRA and Appendix 8 of the VeriSign Registry  
agreement. I think the documents are clear - I had some trouble with  
the attachment, let me know if you have trouble opening it.

Also note that VeriSign sent the document last week - I received it  
to a mail folder where I did not see it until John Jeffrey contacted  
me yesterday, wondering why I did not send it.

I am available to discuss anytime. If you wish to talk before Sunday,  
call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx (my cell phone does not work here).

Regards,

Kurt



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Shull, Mark" <mshull@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: December 21, 2006 10:17:11 AM PST
> To: <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>, <pritz@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RRAs
>
> John and Kurt,
>
> I noticed some recent postings on the RRAs about minor changes    
> While I don't see any reason for concern, I wanted to reiterate  
> what we said earlier to  you on these points.
>
> Verisign Subsidiaries
>
> It is normal business practice for corporations to have the ability  
> to sign contracts in the name of the parent and its wholly owned  
> subsidiaries.    That is what we are doing here.    Related to  
> this, there were questions as to who our subsidiaries are.    These  
> may change from time to time, but I have attached a list of current  
> subsidiaries.
>
> SLAs
>
> The SLA terms are defined in the .com Registry Agreement between  
> ICANN and Verisign in Appendix 10.    This SLA agreement and its  
> terms are incorporated in the RRA agreements and included as  
> Exhibit E to the RRA agreements.    Verisign, the parent entity, is  
> responsible for the SLA obligations.
>
> Surety Agreements
>
> The Surety obligation no longer exists, and in addition, Verisign  
> has not required them even when they did.    This is not an  
> obligation on the part of the registrars in the new RRA agreements.
>
> We have close to 100 returned RRAs to date and are countersigning  
> these and returning them as promptly as possible.
>
> Please give me a call if you have any questions or if I can be of  
> help in any way.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Shull
> Senior Vice President,
> Verisign Naming and Directory Services