RE: [registrars] Message from Richard Lindsay

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

Hi,

Unfortunately I may not be able to make it this meeting due to something tht
has come up. I had everything prepared but a last minute business call
requires me to be here during that period. Nevertheless I would like to see
the following topics added to the list of topics to be discussed considering
that these have been raised in the past and have not yet been resolved -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOPIC I - Elimination of $100,000 security bond requirement by Verisign:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This issue has been raised briefly on the list as well as in the ICANN
meetings. I have had detailed conversations with Mark Rippe from Verisign in
this regards. Mark is fighting this case internally at Verisign, to try and
modify the requirement to alleviate concerns highlighted below. The salient
points of the discussion between me and Mark have been as follows -

Pro-bond (why should verisign have a bond requirement):
======================================================
* A bond should be required in order to ensure stability of a "Accredited
Registrar"
* A bond prevents any-and-every company from becoming accredited, thus
creating an entry barrier for companies and acting to a certain degree as a
measure of financial stability and capability

Anti-bond (why should verisign abolish the bond requirement):
============================================================
* The bond creates an additional financial burden on registrars and exists
as a liability on them for no specific reason in a market were margins are
diminishing this may itself create destability in a registrars operations
due to excess cost burden

* The bond is hopelessly complex to obtain in several countries around the
world thus destroying the very purpose of allowing equal competition around
the world

* Verisign has NEVER in its history had to use the bond against any
registrar, which initself proves its uselessness

* NO OTHER gTLD Registry requires any such bond from a Registrar

* The bond thus acts as an anti-competitive instrument preventing increasing
costs of existing registrars

* The very fact that the Registrar contractually indemnifies Verisign should
not require any sort of a bond


Proposed Solutions:
==================
In light of the above reasons several solutions were proposed which keep in
mind both the sides above, and alleviate concerns of both Verisign and the
Registrars.

Solution 1:
Let the bond requirement stand for the initial YEAR after which the
Registrar should not require to have the bond at all. The logic behind this
is simple. The reason for the bond to exist is to create an entry barrier,
and at the same time to measure financial capability of a registrar. By
requiring it at the time of initial accreditation both these aspects are
taken care of. After one year has elapsed however, the registrar should
already be in a stable position and there will be no further question of a
entry barrier since he is already accredietd and operational.

Solution 2:
Let the bond requirement stand until the registrar has reached a certain
size in terms of number of domains. The logic behind this is similar to
Solution 1 above. If a Registrar crosses several thousand domains, the
registrar could then be considered as stable. Additionally since the
registrar is already operational he has crossed the entry barrier


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TOPIC II - Timely deletion of domains by Verisign Registry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do not know if this has already been considered as a part of the WLS
discussion, but i believe it is important as a separate topic. Verisign
deletions, where domain names which have expired from over 45 days but are
still being kept under Verisign Registrar without releasing them, was the
primary contention with the WLS proposal.


Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
CEO
Directi
----------------------------
Tel: 91-22-6370256 (4 lines)
Fax: 91-22-6370255
http://www.directi.com
----------------------------



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 2:02 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Message from Richard Lindsay
>
>
>
>
> Mike, all,
>
> Hi, I will be in Bucharest representing GMO.
>
> A possible last minute item to the agenda:  Verisign's
> decision to remove orphaned A records from the zone files.
>
> We apparently have a fair number of orphaned A name
> servers, but really haven't had the time to go
> through and investigate exactly the impact of having the
> records removed.  I would be curious to hear how other
> registrars have dealt with this, or if there is any
> interest in requesting that the registry not proceed
> with such haste.
>
> Maybe Rick could give a quick update to the group
> via mail, in lieu of taking up time on the agenda
> if this is not considered urgent.
>
> Regards,
> Richard
>
>
>
> Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> > The meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Tuesday 8:30 am
> to 6:00 pm.
> > Pre-meeting cocktails on Monday evening tentative as well.
> >
> >
> > In preparation of the Bucharest meeting the Executive Committee has
> proposed
> > the following topics for our agenda, any additional items?
> >
> > - Transfers
> > - WLS
> > - Deletes 30 day safety-net
> > - ICANN Reform
> > - Code of Conduct
> >
> >
> > These registrars have expressed their interest in attending.
> >
> > Bob Connelly
> > Ken Stubbs
> > Scott Hemphill
> > Matt Stern
> > Paul Sthaura
> > Bruce Beckwith
> > Tom D'Alleva
> > Bruce Tonkin
> > Mathieu Dierstein
> > Patricia Husson
> > Rob Hall
> > Margie Miliam
> > Siegfried Langenbach
> > Nikolaj Nyholm
> > Bruno Piarulli
> > Steinar Grøtterød
> > Ross Rader
> > Tim Denton
> >
>
>
> --
> _/_/_/Global Media Online Inc.
> _/_/_/Chief Technical Officer
> _/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay
> _/_/_/Shibuya Cerulean Tower
> _/_/_/26-1 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo (150-8512) Japan
> _/_/_/TEL (Reception):  81-3-5456-2687
> _/_/_/TEL (Direct):  81-3-5456-2703
> _/_/_/TEL (Cellular):  81-90-8744-5860
> _/_/_/FACSIMILE:  81-3-5456-2740
>
>