[registrars] Anyone signing the new .COM contract by the 30th?
Rob Hall
rob at momentous.com
Thu Dec 28 18:14:56 UTC 2006
Champ,
Thanks for the clarification. I completely agree with your read of the
situation. We will also not be signing the new verisign proposed
agreements.
Rob.
________________________________
From: Mitchell, Champ [mailto:Cmitchell at networksolutions.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 1:12 PM
To: Rob Hall; bhavin.t at directi.com; Nevett, Jonathon; 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?
Rob, Another way to read the situation is:
1. The revisions proposed have not been "approved or adopted by ICANN",
so sec. 6.1 never goes into play
2. The revised or amended agreement proposed by VeriSign is nothing more
than one party's proposal. If you don't sign it, the proposed Amendment
is of no effect.
3. Since they cannot invoke the automatic adoption provision because it
is not a revision "approved or adopted by ICANN", the current agreement
continues on in effect.
We are considering what to do, but it will not include signing this new
proposed agreement.
W. G. Champion Mitchell
Chairman & CEO
O: (703) 668-5200 | www.networksolutions.com
________________________________
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:42 PM
To: bhavin.t at directi.com; Nevett, Jonathon; 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?
It might also be read that the one that was approved by ICANN is the one
that would go into effect, not the version verisign sent out. But I
leave that call up to lawyers.
The way I as a non-lawyer read this, is we might be better to take the
ICANN version, sign it and send it in, in order to ensure that the VRSN
one does not come into force automatically.
But I would love to know what NetSol, Enom, Godaddy et al are planning
on doing. Can any of you disclose your plans ?
Rob.
________________________________
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Bhavin.t at directi.com
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:16 PM
To: 'Nevett, Jonathon'; '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?
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-29ja
n06.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-29j
an06.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/20061228/3edda847/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 968 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20061228/3edda847/image001.gif>
More information about the registrars
mailing list