RE: [registrars] Position Statement

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

Larry,

Thanks for the question and for being familiar with the documents.

My point in the statement below was simply to address the comments made by
some registrars that they entered the registrar business solely because NSI
was forced into divesting one of the two entities, registrar or registry.
Per the 1999 agreement, divestiture is not required.  Yes, there is an
incentive (the VeriSign Registry may continue to operate the .com, .net, and
.org TLDs through 2007), but not a requirement.  It wasn't until recently
(February 2001) that VeriSign announced its intent, yet these registrars
entered the business well before the VeriSign announcement - and remember,
there was always the possibility that VeriSign would not have planned a
divestiture, in total compliance with the 1999 agreement.

Due to the changes in the industry since 1999, yes you are correct, Stratton
Sclavos has stated that the registrar operations and assets will be
divested, per the 1999 agreement and to choose the registry extension
incentive, if the proposed agreement is not adopted by the ICANN Board, the
Department of Commerce, and the VeriSign Board of Directors.

Please let me know if you have additional questions,

Regards,

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Erlich [mailto:erlich@domainregistry.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 12:29 PM
To: Beckwith, Bruce
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Position Statement


Beckwith, Bruce wrote:

> 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! 

Bruce,

With respect to this statement, the letter from Stratton
Sclavos to Vint Cerf, opening paragraph said the
following:

http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm

-- Dear Vint:
-- 
-- As you know, under a 1999 agreement between ICANN and 
-- Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI has since merged with VeriSign, Inc.), 
-- in order for the term of the registries for -- .com, .net and .org 
-- to continue at least through 2007, we are obliged to divest the assets
and
-- operations of either the NSI Registrar or the Registry (now known as
-- VeriSign Global Registry Services). Earlier this year, 
-- VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself of the assets
-- and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to operate 
-- the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least 2007.

So what exactly do you mean when you say: 

"Remember, the 1999 agreement does not require divestititure!" 

So, why then did Verisign proceed as
if it was going to divest, and why did Stratton Sclavos
state so in his letter to Vint Cerf? 
Sclavos letter seems pretty clear to me.

Larry Erlich

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