[registrars] Anyone signing the new .COM contract by the 30th?

[Larry Erlich]

"cut all registrars off" - We returned our agreement.
Not sure I agree that they couldn't find some logic to cut off
some but not all registrars or *play some type
of game* now or in the future.
No, I don't think they will do that but it is possible.
Of course all this power that exists with Verisign
dates back to the days of the Network Solutions
monopoly and the original deals that
were cut.

By the way, I think, in a way, this
describes the contracts that registrars are
required to sign in order to do business:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2325&bold=contract||

adhesion contract
n.(contract of adhesion) a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced 
in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication 
it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a 
poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no 
matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to 
move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to 
claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This 
doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big 
guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or 
find and pay a resourceful lawyer.


Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com



Mitchell, Champ wrote:
> Jim,
> 
> Do you really think that VeriSign will cut off one of its major sources of revenue and 

go into Q1 at a run rate below its published projections?

They are not going to cut all of the registrars off.

Further, if they actually did become possessed by aliens and

try to do something so stupid and self-destructive, we will be

in federal district court for a TRO immediately, which will in all 
likelihood be granted and

you will all benefit from our spending money on lawyers. Enjoy your 
weekend. Best, Champ
> 
> W. G. Champion Mitchell
>       Chairman & CEO
>  
> 
> O: (703) 668-5200   |  www.networksolutions.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher at RegistrationTek.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:49 AM
> To: john at johnberryhill.com; 'Rob Hall'; Mitchell, Champ; 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?
> 
> Folks, the immediate problem we have is a practical one.  Will Verisign 
> turn us off if we don't return the agreement?
> 
> If so, we're forced to sign it, in which case I doubt it would be held 
> valid as it was signed under duress, but that takes a legal action to 
> determine.
> 
> We really can't afford to have Verisign turn us off, so since there has 
> been no word from ICANN or Verisign on this we'll probably sign it and put 
> it into FedEx today.  Then we have time to deal with the other legal issues 
> later.
> 
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:11 PM -0500 John Berryhill 
> <john at johnberryhill.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> All,
>>
>> To the extent that anyone may have already signed Verisign's document on
>> the basis of the demonstrably false representation by Verisign that it
>> was the agreement that was approved by DoC and ICANN, then Verisign would
>> appear to have the larger problem, since it would be voidable on the
>> ground of fraudulent inducement.
>>
>> Any registrars in that position should contact their legal counsel.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
>> 4 West Front St.
>> Media, PA  19063
>> (610) 565-5601
>> (267) 386-8115 fax
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> *******************************
> James W. Archer
> CEO
> Registration Technologies, Inc.
> http://www.RegistrationTek.com
>