RE: [registrars] Pricing issue ICANN - Verisign agreement

["Bryan Evans" <bevans@interaccess.com>]

Erica,

I recognize the value in what ICANN is trying to accomplish,
and I applaud its efforts in attempting to balance all of
the competing interests.  I think that the separation of
the 3 registries in question has value, as does the creation
of a TLD for non-profit organizations.  However, I have
serious reservations with the proposal as it stands.

I have significant issues with the lack of separation of the
registrar & registry functions for .com.  There is an inherent
conflict of interest, which will become even worse if most of
the restrictions on NSI/Verisign are removed.

One might argue that the various registrar participants in the
Afilias ownership structure might have trouble arguing this
point, but InterAccess/Allegiance Telecom is not a member of
Afilias at this time.  Furthermore, I believe that Afilias is
different from the .com registry in that it allows profit
participation by all registrars in the registry side of the
business, whether they participate in the ownership structure
or not, and the plan provides for open enrollment in ownership.

In addition, I am unhappy with what appears to be an ill-defined
mechanism (with no clearly defined limits, yet) to allow NSI to
increase the fees charged to all registrars.  As the restrictions
placed on NSI/Verisign disappear, they could enjoy an unfair and
disproportionate advantage by greatly increasing the cost of
registrations to registrars, causing great, and perhaps irreperable
harm, to the businesses of all other registrars.  This section *must*
be clearly and explicitly defined before any agreement can be
discussed, let alone approved.

Finally, I have serious reservations about the plan for .org.
ICANN has done a wonderful job in promoting myriad interests
in the Internet, and I strongly recognize the value of a TLD
for non-profit organizations, as the original vision intended
for .org.  However, it's a little late to put the genie back
in the bottle.  InterAccess/Allegiance Telecom recommends a
new TLD with the original restrictions intended for .org
(and yet another with the original restrictions intended for
.net), in lieu of devestating the existing .org registrations.

-Bryan


Bryan Evans
Director of Technology
InterAccess, an Allegiance Telecom company
bevans@interaccess.com
312-496-4295

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Erica Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 5:29 PM
To: Larry Erlich; Registrars List
Subject: Re: [registrars] Pricing issue ICANN - Verisign agreement


> 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

While it is certainly in the interests of those supporting this to suggest
it is a 'done deal', I see no reason why we should accept this.  The time
frame is imposed by the existing agreement - which is the fall back position
for both Verisign/NSI and ICANN.  However, there are some substantial policy
changes involved here and the view of the Registrar constituency is
important as we are key stakeholders in this matter.
My feeling is that there would be strong support for any move to ensure that
ICANN provide constituencies with a reasonable time to consider and comment
on proposed policy changes - however it would be useful if the Registrars
could propose an appropriate consultation process indicating the minimum
timeframes which must be provided for discussion and comment.
As I see it, there are two key points for consideration:
1.  Org:  Should this become a policy governed TLD?  Given that anyone has
been able to register under .org for some years now, I do not see how it
could be closed at this late date to all but not-for-profit organisations.
What enforcement mechanisms would be established? what would happen to all
those individuals and for-profit organisations that have registered names
under .org?  The only point I can see in closing i.org to all but
not-for-profits would be to force for-profits back into .com.
2. Separation of .com Registry and Registrar:  Is the proposed lack of
separation of the ownership of  the .com Registry and Verisign/NSI Registrar
balanced off by the proposed surrender of .org (and possibly .net) registry
from the Verising/NSI stable?

erica


---- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>
To: "Registrars List" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:08 PM
Subject: [registrars] Pricing issue ICANN - Verisign agreement


> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>