<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks. Network Solutions, NameSecure, and SRSPlus all support the statement. Jon<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Bhavin Turakhia [<A HREF="mailto:bhavin.t@logicboxes.com">mailto:bhavin.t@logicboxes.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Tue Nov 22 21:53:11 2005<BR>
To: Nevett, Jonathon; registrars@gnso.icann.org<BR>
Subject: PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement<BR>
<BR>
Hi everyone.<BR>
<BR>
Just to be clear, apart from posting this to the comments yourself, please<BR>
also send a confirmation to Jon or myself that you support this statement.<BR>
Since I will be shortly sending this statement to the ICANN Board as an<BR>
official statement from the constituency<BR>
<BR>
bhavin<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_____ <BR>
<BR>
From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org<BR>
[<A HREF="mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon<BR>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:30 PM<BR>
To: registrars@gnso.icann.org<BR>
Subject: [registrars] Registrars Statement on .com agreement<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Registrar Colleagues:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The Registrar Constituency .com Working Group set up by Bhavin has drafted<BR>
the following statement. Please feel free to sign on to the statement and<BR>
to post it to the ICANN website -- to post comments, please send an e-mail<BR>
to: settlement-comments@icann.org.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thanks.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Jon <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We, the undersigned registrars, recommend against ICANN signing the<BR>
<BR>
proposed .com Registry Agreement. The following reflects those issues<BR>
<BR>
that are of foremost concern to registrars:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
1. New Registry Services<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The proposed .com contract locks ICANN and VeriSign in for three years<BR>
<BR>
on a version of the consensus policy covering the standards and process<BR>
<BR>
for consideration of new registry services. The new registry services<BR>
<BR>
consensus policy process that recently was approved by the ICANN board<BR>
<BR>
is untested, and it is likely that the ICANN community will need to<BR>
<BR>
refine and improve it after it is implemented. A three year lock will<BR>
<BR>
unnecessarily handcuff ICANN and the ICANN community.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We recommend the deletion of Sections 3.1(b)(v)(B) and 3.1(b)(v)(C), and<BR>
<BR>
allowing the existing ICANN policy development and refinement process to<BR>
<BR>
be used during the term of the agreement.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
2. Registry Agreement Renewal<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
According to its own Bylaws and the Memorandum of Understanding between<BR>
<BR>
ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, one of ICANN's core<BR>
<BR>
missions is to promote competition. We understand that the current .com<BR>
<BR>
contract contains a "presumptive renewal" provision, which by its nature<BR>
<BR>
hinders competition. The proposed .com contract, however, goes much<BR>
<BR>
farther than the existing contract by strengthening the presumptive<BR>
<BR>
renewal and termination provisions on behalf of VeriSign, thereby making<BR>
<BR>
it virtually impossible for VeriSign to lose the .com registry and<BR>
<BR>
impossible to reap the benefits of competition. VeriSign should be<BR>
<BR>
appointed as the administrator of the .com registry, not its owner.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We recommend reverting from Section 4.2 of the proposed .com agreement<BR>
<BR>
to the renewal terms of Section 25 of the current .com agreement, which<BR>
<BR>
requires a six month review of a "Renewal Proposal" provided by VeriSign<BR>
<BR>
and only under terms that are in "substantial conformity with the terms<BR>
<BR>
of registry agreements between ICANN and operators of other open TLDs.<BR>
<BR>
. ." ICANN also should strengthen the termination provisions currently<BR>
<BR>
contained in Section 6.1 of the proposed agreement by using the relevant<BR>
<BR>
text from Sections 16(B-E) of the current agreement.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
3. Registry Fees<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The proposed .com contract would permit VeriSign to unilaterally raise<BR>
<BR>
registration fees by 7% per year. The existing .com contract and all<BR>
<BR>
gTLD registry agreements (other than the .net agreement with VeriSign,<BR>
<BR>
which was entered into without community input in violation of ICANN's<BR>
<BR>
Bylaws) require the registries to cost-justify any price increases. In<BR>
<BR>
an industry where the economics suggest that fees should be going down<BR>
<BR>
when there is competition, it is particularly troublesome and<BR>
<BR>
anti-competitive to grant a monopolist or a single source provider the<BR>
<BR>
unilateral right to increase costs without justification.<BR>
<BR>
Unfortunately, these fee increases would result in cost increases to<BR>
<BR>
individual registrants. We note that in the recent competitive process<BR>
<BR>
for .net, VeriSign significantly lowered its registry fees. There is no<BR>
<BR>
reason for unilateral cost increases for the larger .com registry. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We recommend that the Board delete the current text of Section<BR>
<BR>
7.3(d)(ii) and replace it with Section 22(A) of the current .com<BR>
<BR>
agreement requiring VeriSign to justify and ICANN to approve any<BR>
<BR>
proposed fee increase. If there is a dispute between ICANN and VeriSign<BR>
<BR>
over a cost increase, ICANN should have the right to seek competitive<BR>
<BR>
price proposals from other registry operators to ensure that the ICANN<BR>
<BR>
community receives the benefits of competition.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
4. New ICANN Fees<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
ICANN and VeriSign propose a new ICANN fee that would be assessed on<BR>
<BR>
VeriSign and passed on to the registrars. This fee would result in<BR>
<BR>
excess of approximately $150 million dollars to ICANN, and would be an<BR>
<BR>
end run around the existing ICANN budget approval process. As proposed,<BR>
<BR>
ICANN staff has removed an important check on the ICANN budget process.<BR>
<BR>
All ICANN fees that impact registrants should be subject to the ICANN<BR>
<BR>
budget approval process and should not only be the subject of<BR>
<BR>
negotiations between VeriSign and ICANN. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In addition to the changes suggested in number 3 above, we recommend the<BR>
<BR>
removal of Sections 7.3(g-h) in the proposed contract. Any transaction<BR>
<BR>
fees that ICANN needs to collect from registrars (and hence registrants)<BR>
<BR>
should be assessed through the current transaction fees charged by ICANN<BR>
<BR>
to registrars and be subject to the existing budget approval process.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
While we understand the desire to finalize the litigation, it should not<BR>
<BR>
be done so without a sufficient review process nor at the expense of<BR>
<BR>
major tenets of ICANN's mission. In its current form, it is a bad<BR>
<BR>
settlement for ICANN, the ICANN community, and the public-at-large. We,<BR>
<BR>
therefore, urge the ICANN Board to take advantage of the six month<BR>
<BR>
review of a "Renewal Proposal" contemplated in the existing .com<BR>
<BR>
agreement, which doesn't expire until November 2007. The Board should<BR>
<BR>
use this time to review the complicated contracts in their entirety,<BR>
<BR>
have a public comment period commensurate with the importance of the<BR>
<BR>
issue, and make the changes necessary to improve the agreement.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>