RE: [registrars] Position Statement

["Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@netsol.com>]

Registrar Constituency Fellow Members:

The NSI Registrar of VeriSign does not endorse either of the listed
"drafts," therefore we choose option "5" as requested below.  Included with
this statement are some brief comments.

We would like to note our disappointment with the Secretariat of the
Registrar Constituency for only presenting two "drafts" - both of which are
critical of the proposed agreement - we do not believe that this gives
members of the Registrar Constituency an opportunity to clearly decide
whether the new agreement is in fact better for the internet community.
There has also evidently not been any response to the offer extended by
ICANN and VeriSign to conduct a briefing for the constituency to have an
open discussion about the proposed agreements.

With respect to the "drafts" that have been presented, please carefully
consider the motivation that some may have in this area.  Who would stand to
benefit most from the sale of the NSI Registrar?  Would it really be the
average small registrar who is a member of the registrar Constituency, or
would it more likely be one of the larger registrars who would hope to
become the buyer of the NSI Registrar?  Why would there be such strong
sentiment provided to the "informal gathering of registrars" at Melbourne
and via conference calls, for a deal that as Joe Sims and Louis Touton have
clearly described, was an ICANN proposed agreement with all but one of the
terms defined by ICANN?  You are encouraged to read the agreements and
ICANN's FAQ's before you make your decision.  Please see the original ICANN
announcement and link to the existing agreement at:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr01mar01-1.htm and the
announcement for discussion at Melbourne with links to the proposed
agreements at:
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm and
for the FAQs: http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm.

Lastly, there are some facts and questions that you should consider before
deciding for yourselves if the proposed agreements are in fact best for the
internet community:  Did registrars choose to enter the business solely
based on the possibility  that NSI divest of either registrar or registry?
Remember, the 1999 agreement does not require divestiture!  With the strict
OCI policies and procedures in place, and with the contractual requirements
in existence, VeriSign Registry revenues cannot      directly benefit the
NSI Registrar operations - the NSI Registrar is equivalent to all other
registrars in paying registry fees - using free transfers is simply a
customer acquisition activity.  If the NSI Registrar is sold to another
registrar, there could well be less, not more, competition at the registrar
level!  With either the 1999 agreement or with the proposed agreement,
VeriSign has stated that it will continue to sell domains and related
products and services to customers, either as a reseller or as a registrar.


I would be pleased to address any questions or concerns that you might have.

Respectfully,

Bruce Beckwith
NSI Registrar
VeriSign 
(703) 742-4817
bbeckwith@netsol.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 3:02 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Position Statement
Importance: High


Attached find two draft position statements. Registrars have the following
choices: (1) endorse position paper A; (2) endorse position paper B; (3)
endorse both; (4) endorse a modified position; or (5) endorse neither.

Let me know ASAP. I need to get the constituency's views to our names
counsel representative.

Mike