Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 04:07:00PM +1300, DPF wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:46:33 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +1300, DPF wrote:
> 
> >> I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
> >> simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
> >> path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.
> >
> >Indeed, that might be possible, but I don't think it is simple.  Note 
> >that NSI has to make decisions with possible other entities concerning 
> >the sale or whatever of the registrar; the USG must be involved.
> 
> Well NSI will be gambling with a lot at stake if they refuse to agree
> to a one off 2 month extension to the deadline.  We have
> representatives from NSI here so perhaps they could comment whether as
> a matter of good faith they would be amenable to such an extension so
> that the DNSO can properly consult on the issues raised.
> 
> >> Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10.  There is nothing at
> >> all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
> >> registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
> >> to be a Registrar.
> >
> >You have missed something crtically important, I believe.  NSI *will* sell 
> >the registrar by May 10 if nothing else is decided, and that will 
> >effectively lock in NSI as the registry for all three domains in 
> >perpetuity.  
> 
> No no no.  I have just reread both the original agreement and the
> proposed change.  Under the original agreement NSI only get the
> registry extended until November 2007. Section 22(a) provides that
> there will be a successor registry and 22(b) merely says NSI is not to
> be disadvantaged in tendering for this by virtue of being the
> incumbent.

Note I said "effectively".  Read 22 (e).  If NSI is not selected, they 
can take ICANN to court.

> So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
> entities to remain the registry.  If they can not provide the best
> price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.

fat chance.

> Now this is totally changed in the staff proposal.  D(4) states that
> there shall be a presumption that NSI keep the *.com registry for ever
> and ever as long as they comply with the agreements.

It's a little difficult to follow, but I read that as a single renewal.  
The contract doesn't say anything about "perpetuity".  But it is 
legalese, and I don't know if I fully understand it.

> So in fact it is only if ICANN agrees to these changes that NSI will
> have a presumptive right to *.com in perpetuity.
> 
> Now that *may* be a good thing but I'd like more than a few weeks to
> consider things before signing away *.com for ever.
> 
> >NSI is not going to let the registry contract expire -- 
> >that is far more important to them than the registrar -- the registrar 
> >has in fact been losing market share at a percipitous rate, and its 
> >value is problematic.  Moreover, from Stratton Sclavos letter to Vint 
> >Cerf: 
> >
> >    Earlier this year, VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself
> >    of the assets and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to
> >    operate the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least
> >    2007. 
> 
> Thanks for this.  At the moment though I am seeing lots of benefits
> for NSI - they get to keep being a Registrar plus they gain the rights
> for *.com pretty much for ever.  I am not seeing a lot of benefit for
> the Internet Community.
>
> By 2007 the *.com registry could be in the hundreds of millions and a
> competitive tender for the registry service could see massive price
> reductions from the current US$6.

Possibly.  Another quite reasonable scenario is that robust competition
at the registry level will have altered the DNS landscape beyond
recognition, and .com will be a boring and passe place where all the
good names are taken.  The fact is, you are just guessing.  *No one* --
not you, not me, not Verisign, not ICANN -- can do any more than hazard
guesses about the competitive situation 6 years from now.  It is very
important to keep in mind that the market share of the NSI registrar has
suffered an amazing drop -- from 100% to like 40% in less than 2 years.

In any case, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that 
Verisign is ever going to lose .com, under either scenario, unless they 
want to give it up.

> >    I want to reiterate our willingness to see this commitment through
> >    to its completion.  Under this commitment, on the part of both
> >    parties, we would expect and intend to continue to operate the
> >    Registries for .com, .net, and .org at least through 2007. 
> >
> >No matter what, NSI is going to keep the registry for .com for the
> >forseeable future.  The issue is whether .org (and possibly .net, later 
> >on) can be pried from their greedy fingers.
> 
> Under the current agreement they can keep all three until 2007 but
> beyond that it is a open slather for who becomes the registry.

I'm sorry, but that just seems incredibly naive to me...

[...]

> >Yep, it is.  There is a formal request to the NC to solicit input, and 
> >if I were you I would be composing it right now.
> 
> Can you please (serious request) point to the URL where the Board have
> asked the Names Council for input and where the Names Council have
> asked for input? 

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00881.html

> Is the GA the preferred form of input or is it the
> web based forum or will there be a dedicated working group discussion
> or should we just e-mail our thoughts to all 19 Names Council members?

Louis Touton sent a notice to the NC; the NC has to decide the best 
course. 


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html