Re: [registrars] Pricing issue ICANN - Verisign agreement

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Hi Bryan

One of the problems with the lack of separation between Verisign/NSI
Registry and Registrar emerged recently with the multilingual names.  Other
registrars were not able to offer this service at the same time as the
Verising/NSI Regtistry because of late systems changes made by the Registry.
The current separation clearly does not allow for equal access!

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Evans" <bevans@interaccess.com>
To: "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; "Larry Erlich"
<erlich@domainregistry.com>; "Registrars List" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Pricing issue ICANN - Verisign agreement


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