<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><A
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21nov05.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21nov05.htm</A><BR><BR>The
announcement has several carefully worded statements <SPAN
class=504542001-23112005>(some of them vague) </SPAN>that may confuse
registrants and stakeholders -<BR><BR>Q1.1 Can VeriSign raise its prices
under the current .COM agreement? Under the proposed new .COM
agreement?<BR><BR>A1.1 <STRONG>Under the current .COM agreement, VeriSign may
increase prices with thirty days notice and with ICANN approval</STRONG> (which
may not be unreasonably withheld). VeriSign has not raised its prices since the
contract has been in effect, and has indicated that is has no current plans to
increase prices.<BR><BR>Under the proposed new .COM agreement, VeriSign may
raise its service fee (currently US$6.00) for domain registrations by up to 7%
per year starting in 2007. VeriSign will be required to give six-months notice
before any price increase, and to continue to offer registrants the option to
lock-in price for up to ten years of registration service at current
prices.<BR><BR><BR>Q1.2 Why is it appropriate for VeriSign to be allowed to
raise its prices by up to 7% per year?<BR><BR>A1.2 <STRONG>In order to provide
for a transition to allowing market forces to determine prices, ICANN and
VeriSign agreed to relax the current price cap</STRONG>, which has remained
unchanged since ICANN came into existence, on a graduated basis<BR><BR><BR>Q1.4
How is the average .COM domain name holder expected to be affected by the
allowed price increases?<BR><BR>A1.4 Prices have dropped from US$50 per year for
a .COM domain name to as low as under US$10 since ICANN introduced registry and
registrar competition in 1999. <STRONG>In terms of the typical .COM domain name
holder (an individual who holds one domain name), they will benefit from
VeriSign's investment in the .COM registry,</STRONG><BR><BR><BR>Q4.1 When will
the current .COM agreement expire, and would there be a competitive bidding
process when it expires?<BR><BR>A4.1 The .COM agreement executed in 2001, which
concludes at the end of 2007, did not include provisions for a re-bid; rather,
it had a presumption of renewal that could only have been overturned in the case
of a "substantial material breach." <STRONG>Historically, this has been a
feature of the .COM agreement; the original .COM agreement of 1999 contained
very similar presumptive renewal language.</STRONG><BR><BR></P><B></B>
<P><B>Q4.3 Under the previous .COM agreement, VeriSign agreed to expend
US$200,000,000 on certain research, development, and infrastructure
improvements. How did they invest it and why does the new agreement contain no
similar investment requirement? </B></P>
<P><B>A4.3</B> <STRONG>VeriSign has demonstrated the commitment to make
substantial investment in its infrastructure to ensure continued stability and
security</STRONG>. It is clear that the need for significant added investment
will be required every year in the future and not just through 2007, <STRONG>as
usage increases and the complexity and sophistication of security threat grows
more prominent. </STRONG></P>
<P><FONT size=2><BR><BR>Best Regards<BR>Bhavin Turakhia<BR>Founder, Chairman
& CEO<BR>Directi<BR>-------------------------<BR></FONT><A
href="http://www.directi.com"><FONT
size=2>http://www.directi.com</FONT></A><BR><A
href="http://www.logicboxes.com"><FONT
size=2>http://www.logicboxes.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>Tel:
+91-22-56797600<BR>Fax: +91-22-56797510<BR>Board (US): +1 (415) 240 4171 ext
7600<BR>Fax (US): +1 (320) 210 5146<BR>-------------------------
</FONT></P></BODY></HTML>