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

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

"DomainRegistry.com Inc. opposes the position taken by the Tucows letter, and 
does so for the  following three reasons:  (1) Redirecting the proposed 
$200 million VeriSign research & development spending to a fund which 
benefits ICANN  will be construed by the Department of Commerce, and 
more importantly, by the public, as a buy-off by VeriSign to ICANN for 
approval of the  "deal."  Neither the Internet community nor ICANN can 
afford such damage  to their reputations at this stage of the development 
of electronic commerce. (2) Tucows states, "[T]he proposed deal can be 
improved along the lines  the registrars have recommended."  To the contrary, 
the registrars as a  community do not recommend any changes to the proposed 
amendments in exchange for  their endorsement of some type of deal.  Let it be 
clear that the "registrars",  and DomainRegistry in  particular, are on the 
record opposing any adjustment to the current 1999 agreement betwee Verisign 
and ICANN (3)  Tucows  also states that "In our opinion . . . the new agreement 
[puts] VeriSign  on the same footing as other registrars."  To the contrary, 
the Tucows  statement confuses the line between registrars and operators of the 
registries.  By permitting VeriSign to remain on both sides of this line, 
the proposed amendments will give VeriSign a
unique and unfair advantage over every other domain name registrar 
now accredited."  

- Andrew Grosso, DomainRegistry.com Inc.

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> 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