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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:04:08 -0500 , you wrote:

>Dave, consulting with registrars in "interesting" but  not sufficient.  It
>is the users/registrants who have the most at stake, not just those that
>wish to compete against NSI. I'm surprised you overlooked their interest.  

Indeed I did not mean to.  I am just interested at the staff assertion
that there have been no complaints from Registrars and hence no
problems with allowing NSI to remain both Registry and Registrar.

>Time is always of essence. Let's try to get comments from all concerned in a
>timely manner. It's not clear that we can't.
>
>Certainly, there are many questions. Let's see if they can be answered.
>
>If they can't, then it is legitimate to rail against the timelines.

I am wary that just because one can in a mad rush assemble comments on
a proposal, that one should accept such major proposals being dumped
on us at such a late stage, when no attempts at all have been made (it
seems) to do say a two month rollover.

>Have you started generating a list of questions about he proposal? I am just
>getting started myself, and could use input from knowledgeable folks,
>outside of my own resources,  to make sure that the list of questions is
>sound. 

Okay.  I will not be at Melbourne but hope to participate online but
here are some of the questions which occur to me.  They arise is order
as I go down the agreement.

1) The intent is said to place NSI as *.com registry on the same
footing as all other registries.  Is this not rather premature as the
other registries are not even up and operating yet? 

2) Can the Registrars confirm that there have been *no* substantial
complaints about access to the Verisign registries

3) On what basis do the staff conclude that "the importance and value
of the separation of ownership of VeriSign's registry and registrar
businesses ... had diminished quite significantly over the 15 months
since the original registry agreement was signed".  Has any survey
been done or how was this conclusion reached?

4) What are the current number of registrations in *.org and *.net so
one can judge how financially viable separate registries will be.  The
$5 million offer from Verisign gratefully noted.

5) Why not remove Verisign from being able to tender for *.net after
1/1/06 if we really want to separate the TLDs out?

6) Is the $200 million offer to help fund research and development
activities large enough in return for effectively being guaranteed to
be the *.com registry (unless they stuff up badly) for ever and ever.

7) Are there any circumstances under which ICANN should be signing
away the right to tender out the operation of *.com in 2007?
Certainly not before we have even seen what impact the new TLDs may
have on it.

8) In section D(7) it is stated that Verisign funding of ICANN would
be made the same as other registries.  How much do Verisign currently
pay ICANN and how much would they pay under this change (assuming
current financial models) in the next three years?

9) Which Board members sanctioned the staff to negotiate this proposal
with Verisign?  

10) WIll the Board guarantee that all existing registrants in *.org be
allowed to maintain their current domains rather than the two years
the staff negotiated?  

11) If Verisign is given perpetual right of renewal over *.com, how
does ICANN see there being any pressure to reduce fees to Registrars
over time as economies of scale continue to apply.

That's all for now.

DPF





--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html