Re: [registrars] Pricing issue ICANN - Verisign agreement

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>]

Thank you Larry for the substantive comment... we need as much dialogue on
the list as possible, then follow up with a call.

I am in Singapore at the moment with meetings throughout the day then
leave for Melbourne arriving Thursday.  I think most folks arrive Thursday
morning so it may be possible to hold a meeting Thursday eve (AU time) or
Friday) in advance of the Sat Constituency meeting.  I will be off line
for most of the day so could I ask, someone not just about to get on a
plane to organise a tel conf. either Thurs eve or Friday.....

I would also like to draw your attention to an email on the discussion
list
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?nsi2001;3A9F969C00000103 I
do not know the author but it seems to summarize the issues from an ICANN
perspective.

Hope we can organise a call ... sorry to leave it up to someone "else" but
I am in transit ... so best organised from the US.  For all Registrars
coming to Melbourne, let's meet in the bar closest to the reception of the
CENTRA hotel at 1900 hrs on Thursday eve.  I will see if we can organise a
"conference" phone so we have one call to the US with multiple
participants.

Best

Paul

Larry Erlich wrote:

> I would like to bring to everyones attention (as an example)
> the following paragraph which is in the
> new .com agreement between Verisign and ICANN:
>
> -- B. Registry Operator may, at its option and with thirty days
> -- written notice to ICANN and to all ICANN-accredited registrars,
> -- revise the prices charged to registrars under the Registrar License
> -- and Agreement, provided that (i) the same price shall be charged
> -- for services charged to all ICANN-Accredited Registrars
> -- (provided that volume adjustments may be made if the same
> -- opportunities to qualify for those adjustments is available to all
> -- ICANN-Accredited Registrars) and (ii) the prices shall not exceed
> -- those set forth in Appendix G.
>
> (Note: There is no Appendix G that I could find).
>
> I really don't think that ANY OF THIS
> needs further discussion. It is quite obvious that
> this would benefit the LARGEST registrars with
> of course NSI being the largest. (Not to mention the
> fact that pricing can be changed for anyone
> even the largest registrars obviously.)
>
> (NOTE2: NO SCHEDULE G IS ATTACHED, WHY?)
>
> It is also obvious that Verisign remaining
> a registry and registrar is detrimental to
> other registrars even with their operational "firewall".
>
> IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN CUSTOMER PERCEPTION.
>
> Returning .org to its roots doesn't make
> any sense at this point either. We don't want
> to explain this to customers after we've already
> made representations that anyone can register
> under .org for any reason (NSI wasn't enforcing this prior
> to the deregulation as all of you know.)
>
> And we are not interested in entering into new
> contracts with a new registry operator or changing
> business practices for the benefit of Verisign
> (or for the money they are throwing at the Internet
> community in order to make this deal happen).
>
> Verisign and ICANN have been working on this
> since the summer time.
>
> It has been widely reported in news stories that this is a done deal.
>
> I've also read that ICANN and Verisign want to have this approved by
> April 1st, hoping of course to not give people enough
> time to digest this.
>
> Larry Erlich
>
> http://www.DomainRegistry.com
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------