[registrars] FW: RRA Changes

Wed Dec 27 21:40:13 UTC 2006

We got such a call from Verisign, asking that we return the signed revised 
RRA by the 30th.  So if this is not the version approved by ICANN what 
happens if we don't sign and return it?

--On Wednesday, December 27, 2006 6:30 PM +0530 Bhavin Turakhia 
<bhavin.t at logicboxes.com> wrote:

>
> hi jon
>
> any word?
>
> bhavin
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:42 PM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Cc: kurt.pritz at icann.org; Tim Cole; John Jeffrey
> Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes
>
>
>
>
> Here is an update on the .com RRA issue:
>
>
>
> 1.  VeriSign sent all registrars a version of the .com RRA for signature.
>
> 2.  The version VeriSign sent asking us to sign has revisions from the
> version that ICANN and the Department of Commerce approved.
>
> 3.  VeriSign never pointed out the revisions to registrars.
>
> 4.  The revisions I found include the following:
>
>                         a.  VeriSign added “its wholly owned
> subsidiaries” as parties to the RRA.
>
>                         b.  VeriSign added “its wholly owned
> subsidiaries” as parties to the Confidentiality Agreement.
>
>                         c.  Interestingly, VeriSign failed to add its
> wholly owned subsidiaries to the SLA agreement whereby VeriSign is
> obligated to registrars.
>
>                         d.  VeriSign added some very slight changes to
> the Section 6.8 notice provisions.
>
>                         e.  VeriSign dropped the “Inc.” on the
> signature line of the RRA and the Confidentiality Agreement.
>
> 4.  The RRA requires that ICANN approve any revisions in order for them
> to be binding on registrars.
>
> 5.  I understand from ICANN that VeriSign sent them the revised version
> and gave them one day to review.
>
> 6.  I also understand from ICANN that it did not approve the revisions,
> and that they pointed out the issue with regard to VeriSign’s
> subsidiaries.
>
> 7.  I have not received a response from VeriSign to numerous e-mails and
> phone calls to discuss this matter.
>
> 8.  VeriSign now is calling registrars encouraging them to sign the
> revised version.
>
> 9.  I and other registrar representatives are concerned of the precedent
> of this matter.  VeriSign should not be permitted to send registrars a
> contract that VeriSign claims that ICANN has approved and it hasn’t.
> Also, VeriSign should not attempt to make changes to our contracts
> without informing us of the changes.
>
>
>
> A Way Forward:
>
>
>   • VeriSign should provide registrars with a list of wholly owned
> subsidiaries, so that we know with which parties we are contracting.
>   • In the interest of fairness and consistency, VeriSign should change
> the SLA agreement to add its wholly owned subsidiaries to that agreement
> as well.
>   • As pointed out below, VeriSign should delete Section 6.15(a)(6) of
> the RRA, which still refers to a Surety Instrument that VeriSign has
> removed from all other parts of the contract.  This appears to be a
> simple mistake that should easily be rectified.
>   • The revised RRA should be sent to ICANN for approval.
>
>
>
> I have heard from a number of registrars who, absent some kind of
> resolution, will simply print the version of the RRA that is currently
> published on the ICANN website ignoring the revisions pointed out above.
> My hope is that VeriSign will engage in some constructive dialogue and
> help resolve the issue before folks feel compelled to take that action.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:17 PM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes
> Importance: High
>
> All:  I just sent this note to VeriSign.  I hope that VeriSign will
> handle this issue shortly, but we are waiting until it is resolved before
> taking any action with the draft agreement.  Thanks.  Jon
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> From: Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:35 AM
> To: Dahlquist, Raynor
> Cc: 'mshull at verisign.com'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; kurt.pritz at icann.org
> Subject: RRA Changes
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Dear Raynor:
>
>
>
> We received a letter yesterday from VeriSign dated December 6th
> requesting that we execute an attached copy of the new Registry-Registrar
> Agreement for the .com regsitry.  The letter states that the agreement
> provided is “the new ICANN approved .COM Registry-Registrar Agreement
> that will take effect and supersede your existing .COM Registry-Registrar
> Agreement with VeriSign, Inc on 30 December 2006.”
>
>
>
> In the abundance of caution, we compared the copy of the agreement
> attached to the letter with the agreement actually approved by the ICANN
> Board and the U.S. Department of Commerce as Exhibit 8 to the .com
> Registry Agreement
> (http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-settlement/revised-appendix8-clean-29ja
> n06.pdf), and there are both substantive and non-substantive differences
> between the version VeriSign sent to us for execution and the version
> approved by ICANN and the DOC.  These changes include adding various
> VeriSign-affiliated parties to the agreement.
>
>
>
> I brought this situation to ICANN’s attention.  According to Kurt
> Pritz, ICANN was aware of  VeriSign’s request to ICANN to make the
> substantive and non-substantive changes, but stated in no uncertain terms
> that ICANN has not “approved or adopted” any changes to the RRA as
> required in Section 6.1.  Therefore, VeriSign’s statement that ICANN
> approved the version of the agreement sent to us is false.  Moreover, not
> only did VeriSign misrepresent that it received ICANN approval to change
> the agreement, it also failed to inform registrars of the changes from
> the version posted on the ICANN website.
>
>
>
> I find it remarkable that VeriSign would try to change the terms of the
> RRA in this manner, regardless of the substance of the changes.  This
> kind of behavior is unacceptable and violates the terms and spirit of our
> relationship.  Indeed, we should be trying to engage in a period of
> healing after the long and sometimes bitter dispute over the advisability
> of the new .com registry agreement.  Instead, VeriSign apparently is
> engaging in deceptive and obfuscating behavior.
>
>
>
> First, please let me know how you plan on rectifying this situation.
> Second, we should discuss a procedure for making future changes to the
> .com and .net RRAs so we don’t continue to repeat this same scenario
> every few years.   As per the terms of the contract, ICANN must approve
> any changes to the agreement.  As a transparent organization, ICANN
> should give the other party to the agreement – the registrars – an
> opportunity to review and comment on proposed changes before they are
> approved.  It is irrelevant whether VeriSign or ICANN believes that such
> changes are substantive.  Any changes to a contract to which registrars
> are a party should be shared with us before they are approved.  Something
> that may appear to be benign to ICANN or VeriSign might have some
> unintended consequence to other parties to the agreement.  Third, if
> VeriSign does seek to change certain provisions of the agreement from the
> version ICANN and the DOC recently approved, I suggest that it seek to
> delete Section 6.15(a)(6), which still refers to a Surety Instrument that
> VeriSign removed from all other parts of the contract.
>
>
>
> I look forward to hearing back from you.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> Jonathon L. Nevett
>
> Vice President and Chief Policy Counsel
>
> NetworkSolutions
>
>
>

*******************************
James W. Archer
CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
http://www.RegistrationTek.com