[registrars] Anyone signing the new .COM contract by the 30th?
Mark Jeftovic
markjr at easydns.com
Wed Dec 27 23:04:32 UTC 2006
I checked my voicemail this week to find a message from Verisign telling
me it was "very important" that I return the signed contract by December 30.
Seeing as I'm out of the office until Jan 2, I really don't feel like
doing this. In light of the issues below, it almost sounds like I shouldn't.
Thoughts on this?
-mark
Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
> Bhavin:
>
> I have not heard back from VeriSign on this issue. It appears that
> VeriSign prefers to receive two different versions of the RRA from
> various registrars.
>
> Interestingly, I have heard from other registries that have asked us to
> review their RRAs before they even send them to ICANN. It is
> unfortunate that VeriSign is not taking the same collaberative approach.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t at logicboxes.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 08:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Nevett, Jonathon; 'Registrars Constituency'
> Cc: kurt.pritz at icann.org; 'Tim Cole'; 'John Jeffrey'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> A. VeriSign should provide registrars with a list of wholly
> owned subsidiaries, so that we know with which parties we are contracting.
> B. In the interest of fairness and consistency, VeriSign
> should change the SLA agreement to add its wholly owned subsidiaries to
> that agreement as well.
> C. 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.
> D. 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-29jan06.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
>
--
Mark Jeftovic <markjr at easydns.com>
Founder & President, easyDNS Technologies Inc.
ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225
fx. +1-(866) 273-2892
More information about the registrars
mailing list