<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=FR link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Afnic, as the .fr registry and as a CCNSO member, but also as a technical backend registry for various new GTLDs has no particular position on the wholesale price for the .COM<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>We would only wish to remind ICANN of the dominant position of .COM in the world domain name market, and urge ICANN to refer to the best experts of anti-trust and competition to make sure that an increase of the .COM prices, as well as a strong decrease if it could happen ever, have no anti-competition effects on the market. Recognizing that ICANN is not a price regulator, and as a member of the ICANN community, we would just like to make sure that no negative impact on ICANN reputation could affect us collectively in consequence of this amendment. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>On the “binding LoI”, and referring to the DNS Security part of the amendment, Afnic is of the opinion that this part has no place in such a document and is even dangerous for the ICANN community. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>First, referring to the ICANN text :<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>“Under the LOI, Verisign and ICANN agree to work in good faith with the ICANN community and within ICANN processes to develop best practices for ICANN's contracted parties that can be used to create potential new contractual obligations, tools, methods and metrics to help measure and mitigate DNS security threats.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>That LoI puts Verisign, a respected member of the ICANN community, in a position that is outside the ICANN community. The fact that the Verisign’s action is described as being implemented “within ICANN process” doesn’t change this strange way of designating Verisign as an organisation not part of the ICANN community. Jointly with ICANN as an organisation, and not from the ICANN community where it belongs, Verisign would then develop best practices that could be applied to ICANN interested parties, not with them, but for them. The worst part being that these best practices developed, not by and within the ICANN community as it is the rule that bind us, but from a third party, could become new contractual obligations. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Afnic doesn’t understand the rational of such a presentation. We are of the opinion that there is no need to point out at a particular stakeholder to give him a special responsibility in the policy development process, even if the topic (the security) is of paramount importance. Inside the ICANN community, a lot of expertise ( including Verisign’s one) is already existing, and comes from all ICANN stakeholders. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>The reference to the binding LoI in the .COM resigtry Agreement seems therefore difficult to accept for Afnic, is the Loi itself is not strongly rephrased <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>On Verisign’s funding to support ICANN Activities, Afnic supports and encourage any donation from Verisign to ICANN, and welcomes this substantial help given by Verisign as a company, and not by the .com as a TLD. Therefore, one can only applaud this gesture in favour of the core mission of ICANN, because it comes with no specific conditions regarding the .com agreement itself, and therefore should not be mentioned, directly or indirectly through the reference made to the LOI.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Pierre BONIS<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>AFNIC CEO<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>