[registrars] FW: Statement from the Registrars Constituency

[Marcus Faure]

Hi Bhavin,

have we received another reaction from the board? I appreciate that Vint 
commented on our statement, but what we need to see is action. I suggest
that you contact ICANN board and ask for a teleconf, either between you
and Vint or between the board and the constituency. I would not like to
see the process silently continueing until the current status is cast in 
stone.

Yours,
marcus


> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Vint Cerf has asked me to share his statement below with all of you in
> response to our statement at the Lux meeting
> 
> Bhavin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinton G. Cerf
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 3:16 AM
> To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'
> Cc: 'ICANN Board or Directors'
> Subject: RE: Statement from the Registrars Constituency
> 
> Dear Bhavin,
> 
> I hope you also will share your note with the full registrar constituency
> and also please share this response with them as well.
> 
> Board and staff are disappointed that we clearly failed to meet the
> expectations of the community, notably the registrars. We have discussed
> among ourselves and with the staff ways to improve our own communications,
> conscious double-checking about critical policy matters, and transparent
> communication with ICANN's constituencies. We will continue to work towards
> improving our practices and will welcome feedback from you and others. 
> 
> I appreciated the candor of your comments and the careful reiteration of
> concerns during the board/registrar contituency meeting. As painful as it
> seemed at the time, I have great respect for candor if it is offered with a
> constructive intent. ICANN has a difficult task in dealing with some many
> different perspectives and interests; I hope that your colleagues will
> appreciate that as well. 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Vint
>  
> 
> Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> +1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax
> vinton.g.cerf at mci.com 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t at directi.com] 
> > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 8:09 AM
> > To: vinton.g.cerf at mci.com
> > Subject: Statement from the Registrars Constituency
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Mr Vint Cerf,
> > 
> > Please find below a written copy of the statement of the Registrars
> > Constituency that I read out at the Public Forum Luxembourg 
> > meeting for your
> > reference.
> > 
> > Thank you once again for patiently listening to the 
> > Registrars, we hope to
> > continue to engage in constructive conversation with you and 
> > the ICANN Board
> > at each meeting
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Best Regards
> > Bhavin Turakhia
> > Founder, Chairman & CEO
> > Directi
> > 
> > ==============================================================
> > ==============
> > ==
> > 
> > The statement of the registrars constituency is as follows -
> > 
> > "The Registrars trusted the ICANN Board and ICANN staff to 
> > act on behalf of
> > the ICANN community in negotiating a new contract with 
> > Verisign for .net.
> > 
> > Registrars consider there to be a breach of trust by the 
> > ICANN Board and the
> > ICANN staff in approving a contract with Verisign that 
> > contains significant
> > changes from the draft .net agreement posted on the ICANN 
> > website, without
> > ANY public consultation. We consider this not only a breach 
> > of trust but a
> > breach of the transparency provision of the ICANN bylaws that 
> > states that
> > ICANN shall operate in an open and transparent manner and 
> > consistent with
> > procedures designed to ensure fairness, specifically the 
> > bylaws state that
> > ICANN would have a public comment period incase of changes that
> > significantly effect 3rd parties and/or involve any 
> > imposition or changes to
> > pricing.
> > 
> > This is not the first time this has happened. When the new 
> > transfers policy
> > was implemented, the ICANN board aproved a change in the 
> > Verisign RRA, that
> > contained changes beyond purely for the purposes of the 
> > transfers policy
> > without any public consultation with the registrars. The 
> > ICANN staff later
> > on gave an undertaking to the registrars that this would not 
> > happen again.
> > It is the registrars view that this verbal undertaking was 
> > breached by the
> > ICANN staff.
> > 
> > The changes to the .net agreement that specifically concern 
> > registrars are:
> > 
> > - the maximum price ($4.25 including the ICANN registry fee) 
> > put forward by
> > Verisign in the .net application only applies for the first 
> > 18 months of the
> > new agreement. After that Verisign is free is set any price. 
> > We Registrars
> > are shocked by this and want the maximum price fixed for the 
> > duration of the
> > entire agreement.
> > 
> > - Verisign is excluded from new consensus policies and powers 
> > of the GNSO
> > are consderably reduced by contract. We Registrars are 
> > shocked by this and
> > insist that Verisign continue to be subject to consensus policies.
> > 
> > - ICANN negotiation powers during renewal are significantly 
> > curtailed in the
> > .net contract. We Registrars are shocked by this and require 
> > ICANN to retain
> > the ability to negotiate terms, including lower pricing at the time of
> > contract renewal.
> > 
> > We Registrars therefore insist for the following -
> > 1. a re-opening and revision of the .net contract in view of 
> > the fact that
> > due process including the ICANN by-laws were not followed
> > 2. assurances that due process will be followed in similar 
> > circusmtances in
> > the future
> > 3. specific assurances that there is no way something similar 
> > would occur in
> > the dotCom contract
> > 
> > 100% of the registrars who are present here have agreed to 
> > this statement.
> > The list is included below
> > 
> > ascio
> > anytimesites
> > ausregistry
> > tucows
> > enom
> > bulkregister
> > core
> > deusthce
> > directi
> > domainbank
> > domainsonly
> > apag
> > godaddy
> > wildwest
> > bluerazor
> > iholdings
> > melbourne it
> > name intelligence
> > name.com
> > namebay
> > network solutions
> > namesecure
> > srsplus
> > register.com
> > solis
> > domainclip
> > tuonome
> > dotster
> > markmonitor
> > gmo
> > nominalia
> > stargate
> > schlund
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>