<html>
<body>
DomainClip.com supports this statement.<br><br>
Richard Lau<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>From: "Bhavin Turakhia"
<bhavin.t@logicboxes.com><br>
To: "'Nevett, Jonathon'"
<jnevett@networksolutions.com>,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><registrars@gnso.icann.org><br>
Subject: [registrars] PLEASE confirm your support of this Statement<br>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:23:04 +0530<br>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353<br>
Thread-Index:
AcXp610Fl4yr7Nv6RK6jYaiFojuf/gAAK+0wAQJVcTAAE+x54AA00e0gABTeLKAAGzwMwA==<br>
Sender: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org<br><br>
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> <br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Hi everyone.<br>
</font> <br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Just to be clear, apart from
posting this to the comments yourself, please also send a confirmation to
Jon or myself that you support this statement. Since I will be shortly
sending this statement to the ICANN Board as an official statement from
the constituency<br>
</font> <br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">bhavin<br>
</font><br>
<dl><hr>
<dd><font face="tahoma" size=2>From:</b> owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of </b>Nevett, Jonathon<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:30 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> registrars@gnso.icann.org<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [registrars] Registrars Statement on .com
agreement<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">Registrar Colleagues:<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">The Registrar Constituency .com Working Group set
up by Bhavin has drafted the following statement. Please feel free
to sign on to the statement and to post it to the ICANN website -- to
post comments, please send an e-mail to:
</font><a href="mailto:settlement-comments@icann.org"><font face="arial" color="#000080">settlement-comments@icann.org</a></font>.<br>
<br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">Thanks.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">Jon <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">We, the undersigned registrars, recommend against
ICANN signing the<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">proposed .com Registry Agreement. The
following reflects those issues<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">that are of foremost concern to registrars:<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">1. New Registry Services <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">The proposed .com contract locks ICANN and
VeriSign in for three years<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">on a version of the consensus policy covering the
standards and process<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">for consideration of new registry services.
The new registry services<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">consensus policy process that recently was
approved by the ICANN board<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">is untested, and it is likely that the ICANN
community will need to<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">refine and improve it after it is
implemented. A three year lock will<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">unnecessarily handcuff ICANN and the ICANN
community.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">We recommend the deletion of Sections 3.1(b)(v)(B)
and 3.1(b)(v)(C), and<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">allowing the existing ICANN policy development and
refinement process to<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">be used during the term of the agreement.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">2. Registry Agreement
Renewal<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">According to its own Bylaws and the Memorandum of
Understanding between<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">ICANN and the United States Department of
Commerce, one of ICANN's core<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">missions is to promote competition. We
understand that the current .com<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">contract contains a "presumptive
renewal" provision, which by its nature<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">hinders competition. The proposed .com
contract, however, goes much<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">farther than the existing contract by
strengthening the presumptive<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">renewal and termination provisions on behalf of
VeriSign, thereby making<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">it virtually impossible for VeriSign to lose the
.com registry and<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">impossible to reap the benefits of
competition. VeriSign should be<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">appointed as the administrator of the .com
registry, not its owner.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">We recommend reverting from Section 4.2 of the
proposed .com agreement<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">to the renewal terms of Section 25 of the current
.com agreement, which<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">requires a six month review of a "Renewal
Proposal" provided by VeriSign<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">and only under terms that are in "substantial
conformity with the terms<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">of registry agreements between ICANN and operators
of other open TLDs.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">. ." ICANN also should strengthen
the termination provisions currently<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">contained in Section 6.1 of the proposed agreement
by using the relevant<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">text from Sections 16(B-E) of the current
agreement.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">3. Registry Fees<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">The proposed .com contract would permit VeriSign
to unilaterally raise<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">registration fees by 7% per year. The
existing .com contract and all<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">gTLD registry agreements (other than the .net
agreement with VeriSign,<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">which was entered into without community input in
violation of ICANN's<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">Bylaws) require the registries to cost-justify any
price increases. In<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">an industry where the economics suggest that fees
should be going down<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">when there is competition, it is particularly
troublesome and<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">anti-competitive to grant a monopolist or a single
source provider the<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">unilateral right to increase costs without
justification.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">Unfortunately, these fee increases would result in
cost increases to<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">individual registrants. We note that in the
recent competitive process<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">for .net, VeriSign significantly lowered its
registry fees. There is no<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">reason for unilateral cost increases for the
larger .com registry. <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">We recommend that the Board delete the current
text of Section<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">7.3(d)(ii) and replace it with Section 22(A) of
the current .com<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">agreement requiring VeriSign to justify and ICANN
to approve any<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">proposed fee increase. If there is a dispute
between ICANN and VeriSign<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">over a cost increase, ICANN should have the right
to seek competitive<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">price proposals from other registry operators to
ensure that the ICANN<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">community receives the benefits of
competition.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">4. New ICANN Fees<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">ICANN and VeriSign propose a new ICANN fee that
would be assessed on<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">VeriSign and passed on to the registrars.
This fee would result in<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">excess of approximately $150 million dollars to
ICANN, and would be an<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">end run around the existing ICANN budget approval
process. As proposed,<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">ICANN staff has removed an important check on the
ICANN budget process.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">All ICANN fees that impact registrants should be
subject to the ICANN<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">budget approval process and should not only be the
subject of<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">negotiations between VeriSign and
ICANN. <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">In addition to the changes suggested in number 3
above, we recommend the<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">removal of Sections 7.3(g-h) in the proposed
contract. Any transaction<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">fees that ICANN needs to collect from registrars
(and hence registrants)<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">should be assessed through the current transaction
fees charged by ICANN<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">to registrars and be subject to the existing
budget approval process.<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">While we understand the desire to finalize the
litigation, it should not<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">be done so without a sufficient review process nor
at the expense of<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">major tenets of ICANN's mission. In its
current form, it is a bad<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">settlement for ICANN, the ICANN community, and the
public-at-large. We,<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">therefore, urge the ICANN Board to take advantage
of the six month<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">review of a "Renewal Proposal"
contemplated in the existing .com<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">agreement, which doesn't expire until November
2007. The Board should<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">use this time to review the complicated contracts
in their entirety,<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">have a public comment period commensurate with the
importance of the<br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="arial">issue, and make the changes necessary to improve
the agreement.<br>
</font>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>