[registrars] Anyone signing the new .COM contract by the 30th?
Bhavin.t@directi.com
bhavin.t at directi.com
Thu Dec 28 17:15:35 UTC 2006
hi jon
the below para cannot apply to this process since the para explicitly states
- "approved or adopted by ICANN"
in this case there are revisions in the agreement which have NOT been
approved or adopted by ICANN, therefore this provision cannot apply and no
registrar has an obligation to sign the new RRA.
is my reading correct?
- Bhavin
_____
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:22 PM
To: Mark Jeftovic
Cc: Registrars Constituency; kurt.pritz at icann.org; Tim Cole; John Jeffrey
Subject: RE: [registrars] Anyone signing the new .COM contract by the 30th?
Below are 1) the relevant portion of Section 6.1 of the RRA and 2) a link to
the version of the RRA posted on the ICANN website:
"In the event that revisions to VNDS's Registry-Registrar Agreement are
approved or adopted by ICANN, Registrar shall have thirty (30) days from the
date of notice of any such revision to review, comment on, and execute and
amendment substituting the revised agreement in place of this Agreement, or
Registrar may, at its option exercised within such thirty (30) day period,
terminate this Agreement immediately by giving written notice to VNDS;
provided, however, that in the event VNDS does not receive such executed
amendment or notice of termination from Registrar within such thirty (30)
day period of the date of notice, Registrar shall be deemed to have executed
such amendment as of the thirty-first (31st) day after the date of the
notice."
http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-settlement/revised-appendix8-clean-29jan06.
pdf
The VeriSign letter to us was dated December 6, 2006.
Thanks.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mark Jeftovic
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 6:05 PM
Cc: Registrars Constituency; kurt.pritz at icann.org; Tim Cole; John Jeffrey
Subject: [registrars] Anyone signing the new .COM contract by the 30th?
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20061228/62488f43/attachment.html>
More information about the registrars
mailing list