Re: [registrars] ICANN - Verisign - .org registry

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 11:38 AM 3/7/01 -0500, Larry Erlich wrote:
>Did any of you plan your business knowing
>that this was going to happen? NSI Registry
>was able to. I wish I had known.

Dear Larry:  Absolutely not, we joined up with Afilias based upon the 
assurances given in the DOC/NSI/ICANN contract of November 1999 that NSI 
would either divest itself of one or the other functions or that it would 
have no further extensions of their contract for .com, .net and .org.

Where is it said that the DOC agreed to this change?


>Allow them to be both registry and registrar?
>No way, no how

You are so right.

Here is a prior posting which I made to Afilias on 3 March:

I intend to expand upon what I am about to say but to a much broader audience:

Many of us, our firm in particular, entered into the process of applying 
for a new TLD on the firm understanding that NSI would not get an extension 
on either the registrY or the registraR business 18 months after the 
signing of the DOC/NSI/ICANN agreement, namely May of 2001 -- that is 
unless they divested themselves of one or the other service.

The implication has also been discussed that there would be no more 
registries authorized with were also a registrar.

With the assurance that the consortium would not be competing against the 
NSI (now Verisign) registrY, our firm threw in with the consortium.

Now we understand that somehow someone has disavowed the DOC/NSI/ICANN 
agreement, upon which this house of cards was built.

This situation is an outrage.  No offense to our member, Bruce, but this 
reversal of provisions is unacceptable.  If ICANN was unhappy with the 
recent hearings by the House and the Senate, I would like them to know just 
what I think the next hearing will be about;-}

End quote:

That's all I'll add to this dialog at this time, but I'm giving it a lot of 
thought.  Son Duane Connelly will be in Melbourne.

Regards, BobC