<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:55
PM<BR> </FONT><FONT size=3>Subject:
Unsponsored gTLD Registries Statement on Registry
Services<BR><BR><BR> UNSPONSORED REGISTRIES
STATEMENT<BR><BR> Regarding the Proposed Issues Report on Registry
Services<BR><BR> The gTLD Registries Constituency of the Generic Names
Supporting<BR> Organization is currently comprised of the three Sponsored
and six<BR> Unsponsored Registry Operators, including Afilias, Ltd.
(.info),<BR> DotCooperation, LLC (.coop), Global Name Registry (.name),
Musedoma<BR> (.museum), NeuLevel, Inc. (.biz), Public Interest Registry
(.org),<BR> RegistryPro (.pro), SITA (.aero) and VeriSign (.com &
.net).<BR><BR> On behalf of the six Unsponsored gTLD Registry Operators, we
submit the<BR> following statement set forth
below:<BR><BR> BACKGROUND<BR><BR> Each of the gTLD Registry Operators
has entered an agreement with the<BR> Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers which governs the<BR> relationship between ICANN and the
individual registry operator. It<BR> should be noted that only the
Unsponsored Registry Agreements have any<BR> provisions regarding "Registry
Services." In addition, the Unsponsored<BR> Registry contracts only
provide that ICANN consent to the price of a new<BR> "Registry Service" so
long as the operation as such service does not truly<BR> threaten the
technical stability of the domain name system . While
this<BR> constituency recognizes the need for an ICANN procedure for
prompt<BR> technical and security impact review of proposed "Registry
Service", with<BR> a predictable, streamlined and appropriate market-based
approach, the<BR> contracts themselves do not give ICANN or any third
party, including any<BR> of the GNSO Constituencies, Supporting
Organizations, Task Forces or<BR> Advisory Committees, the ability to
consent to any other aspects of<BR> "Registry Services." The
applicable contracts do not provide a role for<BR> ICANN with respect to
prices or specifications for services or products<BR> provided by
registries that are not "Registry Services" as defined in
such<BR> agreements.<BR><BR> To the extent that ICANN wishes to
increase its scope and/or powers with<BR> respect to "Registry Services",
it may only do so in accordance with its<BR> agreements or with the express
written consent of those with which it has<BR> contracts (namely, the
Registry Operators and Accredited Registrars). In<BR> addition, the
meaning of such agreements will be governed according to<BR> applicable
legal principles. It cannot be said that any interpretation by<BR> one
party after having entered the agreement is binding on the other
party<BR> or evidences ambiguity. In addition, interpretations
offered by third<BR> parties have no particular relevance in determining
the meaning intended<BR> by the parties to the relevant
agreements. To the extent that there are<BR> any disputes over
the meaning of any terms within ICANN's Agreements with<BR> the registries,
there is a built in dispute resolution process in the<BR> contracts.
Such dispute resolution does not involve any of the
GNSO<BR> Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, Task Forces or even
Advisory<BR> Committees.<BR><BR> SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON ISSUES
REPORT<BR><BR> The gTLD Registries Constituency is extremely concerned
about the issues<BR> raised in the "Excerpt from Draft Version of Staff
Manager's Issues Report<BR> for the Development of a Process for the
Introduction of New or Modified<BR> Registry Services." Not only are
most of those issues irrelevant to the<BR> introduction of "Registry
Services" as defined in the applicable contracts<BR> with gTLD Unsponsored
Registries, but it also inappropriately suggests<BR> that parties other
than ICANN and the gTLD Registry Operators might be<BR> entitled to prevent
the introduction of otherwise lawful new "Registry<BR> Services." As
stated above, many of these issues involve contractual<BR> interpretation
that involve only the parties to those contracts, and not<BR> the ICANN
community as a whole. ICANN may not unilaterally, or through<BR> the
policy development process, promulgate rules or
regulations<BR> interpreting these agreements without the consent of the
registry<BR> operators. Any attempt to do so would be considered a
violation of those<BR> agreements and subject to the dispute resolution
process set forth in such<BR> agreements.<BR><BR> It is the gTLD
Registries Constituency's view that many of the topics<BR> identified in
the "Issues Report" should not be addressed by the GNSO,<BR> Supporting
Organizations or Advisory Committees, but by the ICANN<BR> staff/board and
the gTLD Registry Operators.<BR><BR> IMPACT OF PDP PROCESS ON GTLD
REGISTRIES<BR><BR> To state the obvious, if there is any one constituency
of the GNSO that<BR> this PDP process potentially affects, it is the gTLD
Registries,<BR> specifically the Unsponsored Registries. Not only
does the introduction<BR> of "Registry Services" impact the competitive
environment in which we<BR> operate, the investment which we are able to
make in our businesses, but<BR> ultimately, it affects the very survival of
our businesses. Without a<BR> procedure for prompt technical and
security impact review of proposed<BR> "Registry Service" with a
predictable, streamlined and appropriate<BR> market-based approach by which
ICANN exercises its rights with respect to<BR> Registry Services, the
future of domain name registries is in jeopardy.<BR><BR> RESERVATION OF
RIGHTS<BR><BR> As the ICANN has posted only a portion of the Issues Report,
the gTLD<BR> Registries reserve the right to comment on the complete Issues
Reports,<BR> when such report is released. In addition, the comments
contained herein<BR> do not address the substance of the issues raised in
the report, but<BR> merely provide, as we were asked to do, an impact
statement.<BR><BR><BR> Afilias, Ltd.<BR> Global Name
Registry<BR> NeuLevel, Inc.<BR> Public Interest
Registry<BR> RegistryPro, Inc.<BR> VeriSign,
Inc.<BR><BR><BR> Jeffrey J. Neuman<BR> Chair, gTLD Registries
Constituency<BR> e-mail: </FONT><A
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us"><FONT
size=3>Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=3><BR></FONT><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>