[registrars] letter to ICANN and NTIA

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Here are my comments on the proposed letter, 
some of which SHOULD be included in the letter, others 
are simply listed below for discussion purposes.

1) Strategically, I don't agree that a strong point should
be made regarding the "benefits" to the Internet
community as a reason to approve, or not approve,
the proposed ICANN Verisign agreements.

ICANN doesn't have the power (for lack of a 
better way to put it) of EMINENT DOMAIN. 

That is, they shouldn't be able to terminate the existing agreement
simply because they have found that entering
into a new one creates benefits to the Internet
community. 

If that is the case, how do you know
that the situation won't change 18 months from
now if/when an even greater "benefit" is revealed???

Verisign: Is this now the REAL contract? 
Is this your FINAL answer? 
(After all, we thought the other one WAS final.)


2) A point that might need to be made
is that according the the (I think) Sclavos
letter, Verisign gets to recoup their investment
if they are ever required to divest of the
registry (the presumption of continued contract).

3) The .org registry IS NOT being returned to
it's roots. ORG was never intended as a TLD for
non-profits.

4) There is no mention of the disruption to existing
registrants of .org ("one renewal cycle" from the
Sclavos letter).

5) There is no mention of how the change 
.org will effect existing contractual
relationships that we have with our customers.
Or assurances that we have made them
that it is acceptable to register in .org.
Or how they will recoup their costs if they
have to terminate their .org domain names.

6) There is no mention of how our rights will
terminate to offer .org after 3 years. 
(Sclavos letter: "all ICANN-accredited registrars
would continue to be permitted to register qualifying
names in the .org TLD for 3 years...") Note
that "qualifying" has not been defined, and therefore the
expense that a registrar will incur
in order to qualify .org registrants can't be known.

7) The cost of qualifying .org registrants
will increase costs to the Internet community
and to the non-profits.

8) Verisign says that they will
have to "re-engineer our SRS and adjust
various contractual relationships with
registrars and registrants".

No mention of costs that we will
have to incur as a result of the fact that
the contract is changing. New contracts need
to be signed, legal fees, new business practices
will need to be followed. Who will compensate
us for the time and trouble?
(When the government takes your
property by eminent domain you are generally compensated
for the property and for related expenses.)


9) There should be bullet points summarizing
the key reasons why this agreement shouldn't
be approved to make it easier for readers
to understand, and so they don't miss the key points.

10) There is no mention of the time factor
in all of this. How these negotiations have
been going on since the summer, and how we are just
getting a chance to review this document now.

11) Verisign as registry WILL ONLY want
its registrars to thrive. 

Verisign as registry/registrar
has every reason to work opposite its 
"dealer channel" as history has shown, and
others have done in the tech industry.

And there are plenty of ways in the existing
contract, and I'm certain that there will
be even more ways in the NEW contract 
for this to happen. 

(Has anyone seen the new contract that we will have to sign?

Of course you haven't. 

This will be revealed after the fact.

How comfortable do you feel about that? 

You won't have any say when that contract is finalized.)

12) No mention of the unacceptability
of price banding, or the lack of knowing
what the maximum prices are (schedule G), or the fact
that Verisign can raise prices for any
reason with 30 days notice. This change
from the existing flat pricing model will
alter the competitive landscape. It will
immediately benefit the largest registrars
and kill off the smaller registrars.

Finally, I think it is a BIG mistake
to end the letter with the
sentence  "If you are inclined..." 
(I will leave out the rest because I am posting this
to the list.) I additionally think
that the (attached) Internet Community Position paper
only reinforces my fears that some of us
have already accepted that the
proposal is a done deal.

I apologize in advance if any of
the issues above WERE included in the
letter (reason for bullets I guess.)


Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------