RE: [ga] My analysis of proposed changes to NSI contract

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

A. The .org registry would be able to use the VeriSign GRS global
constellations of name servers (gTLD name servers).

B. To do your own analysis of the point noted as B below, take a look at
these sections: Existing agreement - 3.C; new .org and .net agreements, 4.
There may be other issues as well, but in my PERSONAL opinion, a careful
comparison of these sections is useful here.  BTW, that is based on my own
analysis on the flight to Melbourne, not on any corporate analysis.

C. The problem I had with Michael Palage's accusations was that he implied
that the VeriSign Registry had intentionally violated its responsibility to
avoid favoritism of the NSI Registrar over others.  As the last public
comment of the day, Michael clarified that these were simply allegations.  I
would never say that there have not been any complaints of conflicts of
interest, but as Compliance Officer for the Registry I can confidently say
that none of them have ever proved that any discriminatory practices were
performed by the Registry.  Moreover, I can tell you that we have asked
ICANN for a list of the "alleged" complaints in Melbourne, and I can assure
you that I will personally evaluate each one that involves the Registry.

D. It is not my place to speak for ICANN with regard to what the projections
are with regard to actual dollar impacts nor am I sure that anyone can
accurately predict this, but this is an area where all three agreements
(com, net and org) conform to the new TLD agreements.  Compare Section 6 of
the old Registry agreement to Section 7 of the new .com agreement and to
Section 3.14 in the .org. .net and new sponsored TLD agreements.



Chuck Gomes

-----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 4:58 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] My analysis of proposed changes to NSI contract


(Portions of message deleted.)

A.

>, and would make global resolution resources available to the operator 
>of the .org registry for no charge for one year and on terms to be 
>determined thereafter, for so long as it operates the .com registry. 

I don't actually understand what resolution services are being
referred to here.  I'm sure someone more knowledgable can specify
these for me.

(Text deleted)

B.

>4. The existing agreement would be amended to provide that (1) it 
>applies only to the .com registry; (2) to conform it in many but not all 
>respects to the template of the registry agreements that will be 
>entered into by the new global TLD registry operators

This has been held up as some major gain yet details have been hard to
come by.  The best analysis seems to be from Peter de Blanc who said
"Clever lawyers would find a lot less to be creative about in the new
contract.".  This is useful of course.  I do wonder if the existing
contract is so deficient whether the same staff were used to draw it
up, as did the proposed new contract!!

(Text deleted)

C.


>5. The requirement in Section 23 for the separation of legal ownership 
>of the VeriSign registry and registrar businesses would be eliminated, 

(Text deleted)

The ICANN staff assert there have been no complaints about NSI giving
unfavourable treatment to other Registrars (I note though that at
least one Registrar disputes that).  This however is in an environment
where NSI knows it will be losing its Registrar business.  There is
some risk that the combination of keeping its Registrar business and
gaining a near permanent grip on *.com, could lead to an environment
where there are more complaints.

D.

>7. In all three of these new registry agreements, the existing limits on 
>VeriSign's responsibility to share in the cost recovery efforts of ICANN 
>would be amended to conform to the relevant provisions of the registry 
>agreements with the other registry operators that have been negotiated. 

Okay can someone who knows the details please clarify whether this in
practice is likely to mean a cent more to ICANN or not, and if so how
much.


(Text deleted.)

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
--
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