Fwd: [registrars] PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement

Wed Nov 23 06:53:15 UTC 2005

DomainClip.com supports this statement.

Richard Lau

>From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t at logicboxes.com>
>To: "'Nevett, Jonathon'" <jnevett at networksolutions.com>,
>         <registrars at gnso.icann.org>
>Subject: [registrars] PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement
>Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:23:04 +0530
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
>Thread-Index: 
>AcXp610Fl4yr7Nv6RK6jYaiFojuf/gAAK+0wAQJVcTAAE+x54AA00e0gABTeLKAAGzwMwA==
>Sender: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
>
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
>Hi everyone.
>
>Just to be clear, apart from posting this to the comments yourself, please 
>also send a confirmation to Jon or myself that you support this statement. 
>Since I will be shortly sending this statement to the ICANN Board as an 
>official statement from the constituency
>
>bhavin
>
>
>----------
>From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org 
>[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
>Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:30 PM
>To: registrars at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: [registrars] Registrars Statement on .com agreement
>
>Registrar Colleagues:
>
>
>
>The Registrar Constituency .com Working Group set up by Bhavin has drafted 
>the following statement.  Please feel free to sign on to the statement and 
>to post it to the ICANN website -- to post comments, please send an e-mail 
>to: <mailto:settlement-comments at icann.org>settlement-comments at icann.org.
>
>
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>We, the undersigned registrars, recommend against ICANN signing the
>
>proposed .com Registry Agreement.   The following reflects those issues
>
>that are of foremost concern to registrars:
>
>
>
>
>
>1.    New Registry Services
>
>
>
>The proposed .com contract locks ICANN and VeriSign in for three years
>
>on a version of the consensus policy covering the standards and process
>
>for consideration of new registry services.  The new registry services
>
>consensus policy process that recently was approved by the ICANN board
>
>is untested, and it is likely that the ICANN community will need to
>
>refine and improve it after it is implemented.  A three year lock will
>
>unnecessarily handcuff ICANN and the ICANN community.
>
>
>
>We recommend the deletion of Sections 3.1(b)(v)(B) and 3.1(b)(v)(C), and
>
>allowing the existing ICANN policy development and refinement process to
>
>be used during the term of the agreement.
>
>
>
>
>
>2.    Registry Agreement Renewal
>
>
>
>According to its own Bylaws and the Memorandum of Understanding between
>
>ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, one of ICANN's core
>
>missions is to promote competition.  We understand that the current .com
>
>contract contains a "presumptive renewal" provision, which by its nature
>
>hinders competition.  The proposed .com contract, however, goes much
>
>farther than the existing contract by strengthening the presumptive
>
>renewal and termination provisions on behalf of VeriSign, thereby making
>
>it virtually impossible for VeriSign to lose the .com registry and
>
>impossible to reap the benefits of competition.  VeriSign should be
>
>appointed as the administrator of the .com registry, not its owner.
>
>
>
>We recommend reverting from Section 4.2 of the proposed .com agreement
>
>to the renewal terms of Section 25 of the current .com agreement, which
>
>requires a six month review of a "Renewal Proposal" provided by VeriSign
>
>and only under terms that are in "substantial conformity with the terms
>
>of registry agreements between ICANN and operators of other open TLDs.
>
>. ."   ICANN also should strengthen the termination provisions currently
>
>contained in Section 6.1 of the proposed agreement by using the relevant
>
>text from Sections 16(B-E) of the current agreement.
>
>
>
>
>
>3.    Registry Fees
>
>
>
>The proposed .com contract would permit VeriSign to unilaterally raise
>
>registration fees by 7% per year.  The existing .com contract and all
>
>gTLD registry agreements (other than the .net agreement with VeriSign,
>
>which was entered into without community input in violation of ICANN's
>
>Bylaws) require the registries to cost-justify any price increases.  In
>
>an industry where the economics suggest that fees should be going down
>
>when there is competition, it is particularly troublesome and
>
>anti-competitive to grant a monopolist or a single source provider the
>
>unilateral right to increase costs without justification.
>
>Unfortunately, these fee increases would result in cost increases to
>
>individual registrants.  We note that in the recent competitive process
>
>for .net, VeriSign significantly lowered its registry fees.  There is no
>
>reason for unilateral cost increases for the larger .com registry.
>
>
>
>We recommend that the Board delete the current text of Section
>
>7.3(d)(ii) and replace it with Section 22(A) of the current .com
>
>agreement requiring VeriSign to justify and ICANN to approve any
>
>proposed fee increase.  If there is a dispute between ICANN and VeriSign
>
>over a cost increase, ICANN should have the right to seek competitive
>
>price proposals from other registry operators to ensure that the ICANN
>
>community receives the benefits of competition.
>
>
>
>
>
>4.    New ICANN Fees
>
>
>
>ICANN and VeriSign propose a new ICANN fee that would be assessed on
>
>VeriSign and passed on to the registrars.  This fee would result in
>
>excess of approximately $150 million dollars to ICANN, and would be an
>
>end run around the existing ICANN budget approval process.  As proposed,
>
>ICANN staff has removed an important check on the ICANN budget process.
>
>All ICANN fees that impact registrants should be subject to the ICANN
>
>budget approval process and should not only be the subject of
>
>negotiations between VeriSign and ICANN.
>
>
>
>In addition to the changes suggested in number 3 above, we recommend the
>
>removal of Sections 7.3(g-h) in the proposed contract.  Any transaction
>
>fees that ICANN needs to collect from registrars (and hence registrants)
>
>should be assessed through the current transaction fees charged by ICANN
>
>to registrars and be subject to the existing budget approval process.
>
>
>
>
>
>While we understand the desire to finalize the litigation, it should not
>
>be done so without a sufficient review process nor at the expense of
>
>major tenets of ICANN's mission.  In its current form, it is a bad
>
>settlement for ICANN, the ICANN community, and the public-at-large.  We,
>
>therefore, urge the ICANN Board to take advantage of the six month
>
>review of a "Renewal Proposal" contemplated in the existing .com
>
>agreement, which doesn't expire until November 2007.  The Board should
>
>use this time to review the complicated contracts in their entirety,
>
>have a public comment period commensurate with the importance of the
>
>issue, and make the changes necessary to improve the agreement.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20051122/d2b84c5a/attachment.html>