[registrars] FW: Tucows' Comments on the ICANN-VeriSign Agreements (copy via Post)

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

This was sent to the ICANN BoD, Names Council and other relevant parties
earlier today by Tucows. It should also have appeared on this list, but it
appears that the .pdf attachment hung things up. The original independant
submission is as follows sans attachment.

-rwr

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:31 AM
To: Vinton Cerf
Cc: Louis Touton; ajm@icann.org; Registrars@Dnso. Org; Alejandro
Pisanty; Amadeu Abril; Andy Mueller-Maguhn; Frank Fitzsimmons; Hans
Kraaijenbrink; Helmut Schink; Jonathan Cohen; Jun Murai; Karl Auerbach;
Ken Fockler; Linda S. Wilson; M. Stuart Lynn; Masanobu Katoh; Nii
Quaynor; Philip Davidson; San-hyon Kyong; Guillermo Carey ; Axel Aus der
Muhlen ; Caroline Chicoine; Paul Kane ; Erica Roberts ; Ken Stubbs ;
Youn Jung Park ; Zakaria Amar ; Kathryn Kleiman ; Michael Schneider ;
Antonio Harris ; Hirofumi Hotta ; Roger Cochetti ; Theresa Swinehart ;
Masanobu Katoh ; Philip Sheppard; Nii Quaynor ; Patricio Poblete ;
Dennis Jennings
Subject: Tucows' Comments on the ICANN-VeriSign Agreements (copy via
Post)


Dear Sir:

        Tucows Inc is responding to the invitation to comment on the
latest amendments to the ICANN-Verisign NSI agreements. Our points in
summary are:

1)      Tucows prefers the new agreements to the previous agreements,
with reservations.

2)      Tucows believes that the new agreements can easily be improved,
and supports the amendments proposed by the registrar constituency.

3)      Tucows endorses the idea that the proposed Plan B can be
improved.

"Why we prefer the new proposed arrangements over the old ones"

        In our opinion, the single largest benefit of the new
arrangements is to put Verisign/NSI on the same footing as other
registrars as regards fees to ICANN. As Stratton Sclavos explained in
his letter to Vinton Cerf of February 28, 2001:

"We have accepted new and substantial obligations on the part of all
three registries to pay fees, as part of ICANN's cost recovery program,
identical to those paid by similarly situated registries."

        Tucows believes that ICANN must be equipped with the resources
necessary to do its job. At the same time, we also believe that ICANN
must be held accountable to those who support it financially, which
includes the registrars and the registrants from whom the payments are
extracted.

"Why we think the new proposed arrangements can be improved"

        Tucows participates actively in the registrars' constituency. At
Melbourne Tucows participated in those sessions that developed the
proposed improvements to the new deal. As a result of these and other
discussions among non-NSI registrars, Tucows recommends to the Board of
ICANN by Tucows:

 - Bid the .net registry through an open, competitive process under the
original schedule of November 2003, and prevent NSI/VeriSign from
participating in the competition;

 - Redirect the proposed $200 million VeriSign R&D spending to a fund
that would benefit ICANN and Internet community goals;

 - Remove the proposed volume discount in the .com registry agreement;

 - Require a minimum 120-day notice to all ICANN-accredited registrars
before the VeriSign Registry provides any new/expanded/enhanced
services.

        Tucows believes that the duty of ICANN is to supervise an
emerging market, for which it needs to be equipped with the proper
resources. At the same time, it should be careful to monitor those
instances of anti-competitive or self-preferential behaviour that could
skew the market towards monopoly dominance. Among those practices are
those that use the former monopoly's incumbent advantages to perpetuate
its market power.

        The items above are clearly those that remedy actual or
potential advantages that could skew the market towards preserving NSI's
market power. We strongly urge ICANN's board to see that the deal is
renegotiated to achieve these results.

        Tucows considers that by actively expanding the number of top
level domains, ICANN is acting in the interests of an open, competitive
market, and that the more .com is reduced to one among many, the easier
it will be for competition to thrive. But more TLDs are not a panacea.
Tucows endorses the idea that the proposed Plan B can be improved

        It is Tucows' view that the proposed deal can be improved along
the lines the registrars have recommended. History has shown that these
agreements can be rapidly improved at the last minute, and that
registrars' suggested improvements will not wreck the deal. The proposed
deal can be improved from the point of view of sound competition policy.
It has several features that Tucows especially approves of, particularly
as regards the future funding of ICANN, that merit Tucows' support, and
others, which are addressed by the proposal of the registrars, that do
not.

        We think that the registrars' recommended improvements, such as
are presented in this letter, should be enacted in the new deal, and
that negotiations between ICANN and VeriSign/NSI should recommence and
have as their object the inclusion of these points. At the same time we
think the new proposed arrangements are the right starting point for
these discussions.


Yours sincerely




Ross Wm. Rader
Director of Innovation & Research
Tucows Inc.


Copies To:
Members of the Board of ICANN
Louis Touton
Andrew McLaughlin
ICANN Names Council
DNSO Registrars Constituency