<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>[registrars] Statement regarding .net</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText62786 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>I think another thing that I
saw consensus at the meeting this morning was: due to the decrease in trust, we
want assurance that this same thing (removal of fixed fee during contract
period, etc) will not happen with .com</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Also, see below for another
appropriate excerpt from another part of the bylaws (note "polices
that..substantially effect...thrid parties, including the imposition of any fees
or charges" parts):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<P><B><A name=III-6></A>Section 6. NOTICE AND COMMENT ON POLICY ACTIONS</B></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><A name=III-6.1></A>1. With respect to any policies that are being
considered by the Board for adoption that substantially affect the operation
of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of any fees or
charges, ICANN shall:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><A name=III-6.1a></A>a. provide public notice on the Website explaining
what policies are being considered for adoption and why, at least twenty-one
days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any action by the Board; </P>
<P><A name=III-6.1b></A>b. provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to
comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, to see the comments of
others, and to reply to those comments, prior to any action by the Board;
and</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org on behalf
of Bruce Tonkin<BR><B>Sent:</B> Mon 7/11/2005 7:39 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
registrars@dnso.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [registrars] Statement regarding
.net<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Hello All,<BR><BR>As agreed here is a possible statement for
presentation by Bhavin to the<BR>Board during the public forum in
Luxembourg.<BR><BR>"Registrars trusted the ICANN Board and ICANN staff to act on
behalf of<BR>the ICANN community in negotiating a new contract with Verisign
for<BR>.net.<BR><BR>Registrars consider there to be a breach of trust by the
ICANN Board and<BR>the ICANN staff in approving a contract with Verisign
regarding .net<BR>that contains significant changes from the draft .net
agreement posted<BR>on the ICANN website, without public
consultation. We believe this is<BR>a breach of the intent of the
transparency provision (Article III) of<BR>the ICANN bylaws that states
that ICANN shall operate to the extent<BR>feasible in an open and transparent
manner and consistent with<BR>procedures designed to ensure
fairness.<BR><BR>This is not the first time this has happened. When
the new transfers<BR>policy was implemented, Verisign negotiated a change in
the<BR>registry-registrar agreement with the ICANN staff, which was approved
by<BR>the ICANN Board, to accommodate the transfers policy that
contained<BR>changes beyond purely for the purposes of the transfers policy
without<BR>any public consultation. ICANN staff gave an undertaking
to registrars<BR>that this would not happen again. It is the
registrars view that this<BR>verbal undertaking was breached.<BR><BR>The changes
to the .net agreement that specifically concern registrars<BR>are:<BR>- the
maximum price ($4.25 including the ICANN registry fee) put forward<BR>by
Verisign in the .net application only applies for the first 18 months<BR>of the
new agreement. After that Verisign is free is set any
price.<BR>Registrars want the maximum price fixed for the duration of
the<BR>agreement.<BR>- Verisign is excluded from new consensus policies that
relate to the<BR>introduction of new registry services other than what is in the
new .net<BR>agreement. Registrars want Verisign to continue to be
subject to<BR>consensus policies in this area.<BR>- ICANN may not change the
above terms in a renewal of the agreement.<BR>Registrars want ICANN to have the
ability to negotiate a lower maximum<BR>price at the time of contract
renewal."<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>