Re: [registrars] Position Statement

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Beckwith, Bruce wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

The purpose of the Registrar Constituency is to 
protect the interests of the registrars, and the
IP Constituency to protect IP interests...

Protecting the interests of the registrars (and 
insuring their survival) will protect the 
interests of the internet community.

I am sure that Verisign makes decisions based
upon what is best for their shareholders FIRST,
and other interests SECOND. 


> 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? 

There are actually many ways that large registrars could
benefit. 

When NSI Registrar is sold, and assuming Verisign can't
process registrations through the spinoff, Verisign will contract
with a large registrar to process their retail registrations.

The winner could be Tucows, BulkRegister, Register.com, Melbourne IT etc.
(Or maybe more than one.) On the other hand, those registrars
would benefit from the price banding in the proposed
NEW agreement. So all of them would benefit from the NEW
agreement, but only 1 of them would probabably benefit
from the old agreement. 


> 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?

Could you provide the item(s) that were
proposed by Verisign instead of ICANN?

Larry Erlich

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